North Carolina v. Butler
North Carolina v. Butler, 441 US 369 (1979) is a landmark decision of Supreme Court of the United States held that a defendant's self-incriminating testimony is not inadmissible when there is no express waiver of Miranda rights. The court held that Miranda rights do not require adopting a flexible per se rule. 10 of 11 the United States courts of appeals ruled that an express waiver is not necessary.[1]
| North Carolina v. Butler | |
|---|---|
| Seal of the United States Supreme Court | |
| Argued March 27, 1979 Decided April 24, 1979 | |
| Full case name | North Carolina v. Willie Thomas Butler |
| Citations | 441 U.S. 369 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | State v. Butler, 244 S.E.2d (1978), 295 N.C. 250, No. 87; Writ of Cert. to the Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Questions presented | |
| Is a defendant’s self-incriminating testimony inadmissible when there is no express waiver of Miranda rights? | |
| Holding | |
| An explicit statement of waiver is not invariably necessary to support a finding that the defendant waived the right to counsel guaranteed by the Miranda case. The question of waiver must be determined on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, and there is no reason in a case such as this for a per se rule, such as that of the North Carolina Supreme Court. By creating an inflexible rule that no implicit waiver can ever suffice, that court has gone beyond the requirements of federal organic law, and thus its judgment cannot stand, since a state court can neither add to nor subtract from the mandates of the United States Constitution | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by White, Blackmun, Burger, Rehnquist |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Stevens |
| Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
The court added that the question of waiver must be determined according to the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The court also criticized the Supreme Court of North Carolina for going beyond the requirements of the federal organic law by creating a "flexible rule" that no implicit waiver can ever suffice. The court concluded that a state court can neither add nor subtract from the mandate of the Constitution of the United States.[2]
Background
In December 1976, Willie Thomas Butler and his companion, Elmer Lee, robbed a gas station in Goldsboro, North Carolina. Butler shot a station attendant, causing him to become paralyzed, as they were trying to escape. Both men fled to The Bronx, New York where they were arrested by FBI agents on the basis of a fugitive warrant. After his arrest, the agents took Butler into an FBI office in New Rochelle, New York. During interrogation, the officer gave him the "Advice of Rights" to signify that the respondent understood his rights. Butler refused to sign the waiver, and told the officer that he would not sign any waiver but he would like to talk to the officer. Butler didn't ask for an attorney and proceeded to make self-incriminating statements which were used as evidence at the trial.[3] At the trial, Butler moved to suppress the evidence but the court denied the motion, arguing that Butler had effectively waived his rights to an attorney when he spoke to the FBI agent after saying that he understood his rights. The jury found him guilty of kidnapping, armed robbery, and felonious assault. Butler appealed his case to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The court reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered a new trial, holding that statements made under interrogation were inadmissible without an express waiver of rights.[4]
References
- ↑ "North Carolina v. Butler". Oyez.com. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
- ↑ "North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
- ↑ Calvi & Coleman 2016.
- ↑ Kennelly 1979, p. 260.
Further Works
- Kennelly, Jack (1979). "Failure to Request Counsel; Waiver - Miranda Per Se Exclusion of Confessions Obtained in Absence of Counsel No Longer Applicable: Waiver of Counsel Determined on Basis of Totality of Circumstances". North Dakota Law Review. 56: 260 – via Google Scholar.
- Calvi, James V.; Coleman, Susan (2016-09-16). American Law and Legal Systems. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317225515. Search this book on
This article "North Carolina v. Butler" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:North Carolina v. Butler. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
