Court Opinion

ID: 9765124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:52:01.017446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:05.581230
License: Public Domain

BRYANT, Judge.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I believe the facts of this case could support a trial court’s finding and conclusion that defendant’s confession was voluntary and not coerced. However, given that the initial determination of whether the State has met its burden of showing defendant’s confession to be voluntary is for the trial court2, and acknowledging the lower court’s proximity to the parties as well as the issue now before us on appeal, I must concur in the result.

. In State v. Corley, our Supreme Court stated:
In a voir dire hearing on the admissibility of a defendant’s confession, the trial court must determine whether the State has borne its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s confession was voluntary. State v. Johnson, 304 N.C. 680, 285 S.E.2d 792 (1982). The preponderance of the evidence test is not, however, to be applied by appellate courts in reviewing the findings of the trial court. Id. The findings by the trial court are conclusive and binding upon appellate courts if supported by competent evidence in the record. Id. This is true even though the evidence is conflicting. State v. Jackson, 308 N.C. 549, 304 S.E.2d 134 (1983).
310 N.C. 40, 52, 311 S.E.2d 540, 547 (1984). Moreover, “[cjonclusions of law that are correct in light of the findings are also binding on appeal.’ ” State v Howell, 343 N.C. 229, 239, 470 S.E.2d 38, 43 (1996) (citing State v. Mahaley, 332 N.C. 583, 593, 423 S.E.2d 58, 64 (1992)).