IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA15-1360
Filed: 18 October 2016
Mecklenburg County, No. 14 CRS 226619
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
v.
TYRONE TY WATSON, Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from order entered 28 May 2015 by Judge Carla N.
Archie and judgment entered 8 July 2015 by Judge Yvonne Mims Evans in
Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 April 2016.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Scott A. Conklin,
for the State.
Appellate Defender G. Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Hannah
H. Love, for Defendant-Appellant.
INMAN, Judge.
Tyrone Ty Watson (“Defendant”) appeals from an order entered 28 May 2015
denying his motion to suppress and a judgment entered 8 July 2015 following his
guilty plea to a charge of attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon. On appeal,
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
statements made to a police officer during an interrogation outside of the presence of
Defendant’s parent. After careful review, we hold that Defendant was advised of his
right to have a parent present pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2101, that Defendant
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
failed to invoke this right, and that Defendant therefore waived this right.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to
suppress his statements to the officer.
Factual & Procedural History
On 8 July 2014, Officers Jeffrey King and Roman McNeil of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Police Department (“CMPD”) went to Defendant’s home to serve an
arrest warrant. Defendant’s mother told the officers that Defendant was on his way
home on a city bus. The officers subsequently stopped the bus, removed Defendant,
and arrested him. CMPD Officers Mathew Daly and Jacob Powell transported
Defendant to the Providence Divisional Team Office. Defendant was placed in an
interview room, handcuffed, and shackled to the floor.
Approximately twenty minutes from the time Defendant arrived at the
precinct, CMPD Crime Scene Detective Thomas Grosse (“Detective Grosse”) entered
the room where Defendant was handcuffed and shackled, and initiated an audio-
recorded interrogation. Defendant stated that he was sixteen years old, that his
birthday was 3 October 1997, and that he was about to re-enter the tenth grade. He
also stated that he resided with his mother, Rhonda Stevenson, at an apartment on
Marvin Road. Detective Grosse and Defendant then engaged in the following
colloquy:
Detective Grosse: Do you have any idea why you are here?
-2-
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
Defendant: They say that I got a warrant.
Detective Grosse: Okay. Well, before I can go in and
explain it. You know you’ve seen the movies so I just got to
go through all of this. You got the right to remain silent.
That means you don’t have to say or do anything or answer
questions. Anything I say can be used against me. You
have the right to have a parent, guardian or custodian here
with you now during questioning. Parent means your
mother, father, stepmother, stepfather. Guardian means
person responsible for you or taking care of you. Custodian
means the person that is the charge where you are staying
– that is like a foster home, doesn’t really apply to you. You
have the right to speak to an attorney before questioning.
You have a right to have an attorney present during
question[ing]. If you want to have a lawyer during
questioning, one will be provided to you at no cost before
you’re questioned. Okay. And your mother would be
Rhonda Stevenson, if you wanted her to be here. You can
read?
Defendant: Yeah.
Detective Grosse: Basically, this is the form [the Juvenile
Waiver of Rights form]. I need you to initial here that I
read it. That way I don’t get in trouble. You can read over
it—it’s basically everything I just said to you.
Detective Grosse filled in Defendant’s name, age, birthdate, address, and
school year in the bank spaces at the top of the Juvenile Waiver of Rights form.
Detective Grosse also filled in his own name, indicating that he had informed
Defendant of his rights, including his Miranda rights and the right to have a parent
present when questioned. At the bottom of the form, the juvenile suspect is instructed
to select one of two boxes specifying either that he/she is electing to answer questions:
-3-
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
(1) in the presence of a “lawyer, parent, guardian, and/or custodian” or (2) without a
“lawyer, parent, guardian, and/or custodian” present. Before handing the form to
Defendant, Detective Grosse filled in two blank spaces in the first box so that it read
as follows:
My lawyer, parent, guardian, and/or custodian is/are here
with me now. The name(s) of the person(s) here with me
is/are: Ronda [sic] Stevenson. I understand my rights as
explained by Officer/Detective Grosse, and I DO wish to
answer questions at this time. My decision to answer
questions now is made freely and is my own choice. No one
has threatened me in any way or promised me special
treatment. Because I have decided to answer questions
now, I am signing my name below.
After filling in the blanks, Detective Grosse gave Defendant the Juvenile
Waiver of Rights Form. Defendant initialed each of the five rights listed on the form,
indicating that Detective Grosse had explained each right and that Defendant
understood each right. At the bottom of the form, Defendant also wrote his initials
next to the first box, erroneously indicating that his mother was present with
Defendant at that time. Defendant did not initial the second box, which Detective
Grosse had not filled in or asked Defendant to review and initial. The second box
stated:
I am 14 years old or more and I understand my rights as
explained by Officer/Detective ____________. I DO wish to
answer questions now, WITHOUT a lawyer, parent,
guardian, or custodian here with me. My decision to
answer questions now is made freely and is my own choice.
No one has threatened me in any way or promised me
-4-
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
special treatment. Because I have decided to answer
questions now, I am signing my name below.
Both Defendant and Detective Grosse signed the Juvenile Waiver of Rights
Form. Detective Grosse then proceeded to interrogate Defendant and Defendant
made statements incriminating himself in an attempted robbery.
On 28 July 2014, Defendant was indicted on a charge of attempted robbery
with a dangerous weapon in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-87. On 8 April 2015,
Defendant moved to suppress his statement to Detective Grosse on the grounds that
it was obtained in violation of the United States Constitution, the North Carolina
Constitution, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-87.
On 28 May 2015, Defendant’s motion came on for hearing during the Criminal
Session of Mecklenburg County Superior Court, Judge Carla N. Archie presiding. On
the same day, Judge Archie orally denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, making
the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
On July 8th, 2014, officers went to the home of the
defendant, Tyrone Watson, in order to serve an arrest
warrant, that the defendant was not present, and the
officers returned sometime later. On their second visit, the
defendant’s mother informed the officers that he was on a
city bus on his way home. Officers stopped a city bus on or
about Randolph Road in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County.
Officers executed the arrest warrant, placing him
under arrest and transferring him to the custody of
different officers to transport him to the Providence
divisional precinct.
At the precinct the defendant was placed into an
interview room, he was shackled to the floor and
-5-
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
handcuffed at the wrist and later interviewed by Detective
Thomas Grosse.
Prior to the interview, Detective Grosse reviewed
the juvenile waiver of rights form with the defendant. At
the time of the interview the defendant was 16 years of age
and had partially completed the tenth grade. Detective
Grosse read each of the rights to the defendant numbered
one through five, and Detective Grosse filled in Checkbox
Number 1 indicating that Rhonda Stevenson, the
defendant’s mother, was present at the time. Detective
Grosse also filled in the blank indicating that he had
explained the rights to the defendant. Defendant Grosse
asked the defendant to initial each of the rights indicating
that he understood each of the numbered rights one
through five, that the defendant did initial each of those
rights.
The defendant also initialed the first check box,
which on its face indicates that the defendant’s mother,
Rhonda Stevenson, is here with me now, that he
understood the rights as explained by Officer Grosse, and
did wish to answer questions.
The defendant then signed the bottom of the form
and proceeded to answer Officer Grosse’s questions and
otherwise participate in the conversation and ultimately
made incriminating statements.
Having considered the testimony and having
reviewed the video, the Court finds that the defendant’s
mother was not present, that the defendant did not request
the presence of his mother, and that the indication on the
juvenile waiver of rights form, which says that Rhonda
Stevenson is here now, was both an error on the part of the
officer and the defendant. However, the Court finds that
the defendant was advised of his rights, that there is no
credible evidence of a request for his mother, and that the
waiver of his rights was knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent.
The Court, therefore, concludes as a matter of law
that any statements made thereafter are admissible, and
the defendant’s motion to suppress is denied.
-6-
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
On 8 July 2015, before Judge Yvonne Mims Evans in Mecklenburg County
Superior Court, Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery with a dangerous
weapon and was sentenced as a prior record Level I Offender to an active term of 42
to 63 months imprisonment. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.
Analysis
In reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress, this Court determines
“whether the trial judge’s underlying findings of fact are supported by competent
evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those
factual findings in turn support the judge’s ultimate conclusions of law.” State v.
Johnson, 98 N.C. App. 290, 294, 390 S.E.2d 707, 709 (1990) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). “We review the trial court's conclusions of law de novo.” State
v. Brown, 217 N.C. App. 566, 571, 720 S.E.2d 446, 450 (2011) (citations omitted). “To
determine whether the interrogation has violated defendant’s rights, we review the
findings and conclusions of the trial court.” State v. Branham, 153 N.C. App. 91, 95,
569 S.E.2d 24, 27 (2002).
Defendant contends that his statutory right to have a parent present during
questioning was violated when Detective Grosse continued to question Defendant
after he invoked his right to have his mother present. Specifically, Defendant argues
that by declining to initial the box stating that he was waiving his right to have his
parent or lawyer present during questioning, he “expressly elected not to waive his
-7-
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
right to counsel or the presence of his parent[,]” and that by initialing the box stating
that his mother was present, he “unambiguously indicated that he wanted his mother
present during his questioning.” Defendant further asserts that if even if his
invocation of his right to have a parent present was ambiguous, Detective Grosse’s
failure to clarify whether Defendant wanted his mother present during the
questioning constituted error sufficient to warrant the suppression of Defendant’s
statement to Detective Grosse. In light of the trial court’s findings of fact, we
disagree.
Section 7B-2101 of the North Carolina General Statutes sets out the provisions
governing juvenile interrogations. The statute mandates that prior to questioning a
juvenile in custody, an officer must advise the juvenile of the following:
(1) That the juvenile has a right to remain silent;
(2) That any statement the juvenile does make can be and
may be used against the juvenile;
(3) That the juvenile has a right to have a parent, guardian,
or custodian present during questioning; and
(4) That the juvenile has a right to consult with an attorney
and that one will be appointed for the juvenile if the
juvenile is not represented and wants representation.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2101(a) (2015). Section 7B-2101 further provides that “[b]efore
admitting into evidence any statement resulting from custodial interrogation, the
court shall find that the juvenile knowingly, willingly, and understandingly waived
-8-
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
the juvenile’s rights.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2101(d). “The burden rests on the State
to show the juvenile defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights.”
State v. Johnson, 136 N.C. App. 683, 693, 525 S.E.2d 830, 836 (2000). A juvenile is
defined as a person younger than eighteen who is not married, emancipated, or a
member of the armed forces of the United States. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(14) (2015).
During a police interrogation, “[o]nce a juvenile defendant has requested the
presence of a parent, or any one of the parties listed in the statute, defendant may
not be interrogated further ‘until counsel, parent, guardian, or custodian has been
made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication,
exchanges, or conversations with the police.’ ” Branham, 153 N.C. App. at 95, 569
S.E.2d at 27 (alteration omitted) (quoting Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 626, 89
L.Ed.2d 631, 636 (1986)).
In this case, the trial court classifies its statement that “[D]efendant did not
request the presence of his mother” as a finding of fact. Defendant asserts that
whether Defendant invoked his right to have a parent present during questioning is
a question of law, not fact, and therefore warrants a de novo review. The State
analyzes the determination as a finding of fact, subject to the more deferential
standard.
“The classification of a determination as either a finding of fact or a conclusion
of law is admittedly difficult. As a general rule, however, any determination
-9-
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
requiring the exercise of judgment, . . . or the application of legal principles, . . . is
more properly classified a conclusion of law.” In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 510,
491 S.E.2d 672, 675 (1997) (citations omitted). The trial court’s classification of a
determination as one of fact or law “is not determinative, and, when necessary, the
appellate court can reclassify an item before applying the appropriate standard of
review.” N.C. State Bar v. Key, 189 N.C. App. 80, 88, 658 S.E.2d 493, 499 (2008)
(citation omitted).
The trial court’s determination that “[D]efendant did not request the presence
of his mother” is best considered a mixed question of fact (whether Defendant
indicated that he wanted his mother to be present) and law (whether Defendant’s
indication was sufficient to invoke his legal right to have his mother present before
the interrogation could continue).
With regard to mixed questions of law and fact, the
factual findings . . . are conclusive on appeal if supported
by any competent evidence. As with separate findings of
fact and conclusions of law, the factual elements of a mixed
finding must be supported by competent evidence, and the
legal elements must, in turn, be supported by the facts.
Rolan v. N.C. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 233 N.C. App. 371, 379-80, 756
S.E.2d 788, 794 (2014) (citations omitted); see also Beach v. McLean, 219 N.C. 521,
525, 14 S.E.2d 515, 518 (1941) (holding that a trial court’s determination of a mixed
question of fact and law is conclusive “provided there is sufficient evidence to sustain
the element of fact involved[]”).
- 10 -
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
The trial court’s purely factual findings independent of the one challenged on
appeal included: (1) a finding that Defendant “initialed the first check box [on the
Juvenile Waiver of Rights form], which on its face indicates that[ D]efendant’s
mother, Rhonda Stevenson, is here with me now, that he understood the rights as
explained by Officer Grosse, and did wish to answer questions[;]” and (2) a finding
that “the indication on the [J]uvenile [W]aiver of [R]ights form, which says that
Rhonda Stevenson is here now, was both an error on the part of the officer and[
D]efendant.” The finding that Defendant’s initial next to the first box was merely an
error is consistent with the factual finding that Defendant did not indicate that he
wanted his mother present. In making these two findings, the trial court resolved
conflicts in evidence, a role exclusive to the trier of fact. State v. Overocker, 236 N.C.
App. 423, 428, 762 S.E.2d 921, 925, writ denied, review denied, 367 N.C. 802, 766
S.E.2d 846 (2014) (holding that “deference is afforded the trial judge because he is in
the best position to weigh the evidence, given that he has heard all of the testimony
and observed the demeanor of the witnesses”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). That the evidence could have been interpreted differently, as Defendant
argues, is not a basis to reverse the trial court. State v. Eason, 336 N.C. 730, 745,
445 S.E.2d 917, 926 (1994) (“A trial court’s findings of fact following a hearing on the
admissibility of a defendant’s statements are conclusive on appeal if supported by
competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting.”).
- 11 -
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
Considering the separate factual findings as well as the factual element of the
finding challenged by Defendant, and assuming that the issue of whether Defendant
effectively invoked his right to have his mother present during the interrogation or
refused to waive that right presents a question of law subject to de novo review, we
hold that the factual findings support the conclusion that Defendant did not invoke
his right to have his mother present and validly waived his right to have parent
present during the interrogation.
Defendant contends that assuming the record is ambiguous as to whether he
invoked his right to have his parent present, the trial court still erred in denying his
motion to suppress because Detective Grosse failed to clarify whether Defendant
intended to waive his statutory right to have a parent present. In State v. Saldierna,
__ N.C. App. __, __, 775 S.E.2d 326, 327, review allowed, writ allowed, 368 N.C. 356,
776 S.E.2d 846 (2015), this Court concluded that a juvenile’s ambiguous statement
regarding his/her right to have a parent present “triggers a requirement for the
interviewing officer to clarify the juvenile’s meaning.” Id. at __, 775 S.E.2d at 334.
The North Carolina Supreme Court has allowed the State’s petition for Writ of
Supersedeas and petition for discretionary review and has not yet issued a decision.
Saldierna, 368 N.C. 356, 776 S.E.2d 846. Therefore, the issue of whether an officer
is required to clarify a juvenile’s ambiguous statement regarding his/her right to have
a parent present for questioning is still unsettled. However, for purposes of this
- 12 -
STATE V. WATSON
Opinion of the Court
opinion, we need not address the applicability of Saldierna because the trial court in
this case found that Defendant did not make a statement, ambiguous or otherwise,
invoking his right to have a parent present during the interrogation. The trial court
did not find that by initialing the first box on the Juvenile Waiver of Rights Form,
Defendant ambiguously invoked his right to have his mother present for questioning.
Rather, the trial court found that Defendant’s initialing of the box was an error.
Considering evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Defendant’s
initialing of the line next to the first box on the Juvenile Waiver of Rights form was
an error, and considering evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Defendant
did not request the presence of his mother or ask to contact her, we hold that
Defendant never invoked his right to have his mother present for questioning.
Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that although Defendant was advised
of his statutory right to have a parent present during police questioning, Defendant
never invoked, either ambiguously or unambiguously, this right. As such, we affirm
the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police.
AFFIRMED.
Judges ELMORE and MCCULLOUGH concur.
- 13 -