State v. Bartlett, 368 N.C. 309

Background

Bartlett was charged with impaired driving; convicted in District Court and appealed to Superior Court where he moved to suppress post-arrest evidence for lack of probable cause.
A suppression hearing was held before Judge Abraham P. Jones on 18 Dec 2012. The State’s arresting officer (qualified as an expert) testified the field sobriety tests indicated impairment. Bartlett’s expert testified the tests did not indicate impairment.
Judge Jones orally granted Bartlett’s motion to suppress and asked counsel to prepare a written order, but Judge Jones’s term expired before he signed any written findings.
A different judge, Judge Orlando F. Hudson Jr., signed a written order granting the motion that expressly credited Bartlett’s expert and found no probable cause, despite not having heard the suppression hearing testimony.
The Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Jones’s oral ruling, finding no material conflict in the evidence and that Judge Jones supplied rationale from the bench. The State sought discretionary review.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) findings of fact are required when a material conflict in evidence exists, (2) the judge who heard the evidence must make those findings, and (3) because Judge Jones made no resolving factual findings and Judge Hudson did not hear the evidence, a new suppression hearing is required.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Bartlett's Argument	Held
Whether an oral bench ruling without explicit findings suffices when there is a material conflict in suppression-hearing evidence	Oral ruling by Judge Jones was sufficient; no material conflict existed so findings could be inferred	Oral explanation plus undisputed test facts suffice; no written findings required	When a material conflict exists, explicit findings (oral or written) are required to resolve it; Judge Jones made no resolving finding, so his oral ruling was inadequate
Whether a different judge may sign findings resolving conflicts without having heard the suppression hearing	The substitute judge lacked authority; findings must be made by the judge who heard the evidence	Section 15A-1224(b) allows a substitute judge to complete proceedings and thus sign the order	Substitute judge cannot make fact findings resolving a suppression-hearing conflict without having heard the testimony; new hearing required
Applicability of prior two-part Williams test (rationale from bench + no material conflict)	Williams applies; if no material conflict and rationale given, written order unnecessary	Williams supports affirmance based on bench rationale and undisputed facts	Court disavows any rule suggesting findings are not required when material conflicts exist; Williams’s two-part approach limited and clarified
Whether appellate review is possible absent explicit fact findings resolving conflicts	Appellate courts can infer findings from bench decisions when no material conflict exists	Same as State	If material conflict exists and presiding judge fails to resolve it with findings, appellate review is impaired and reversal/remand for new hearing is required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Williams, 195 N.C. App. 554, 673 S.E.2d 394 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (two-part test about bench rationale and material conflicts at suppression hearings)
State v. Oates, 366 N.C. 264, 732 S.E.2d 571 (N.C. 2012) (written findings preferable though not always required)
State v. Salinas, 366 N.C. 119, 729 S.E.2d 63 (N.C. 2012) (only material conflicts require explicit findings to show basis for ruling)
State v. Ladd, 308 N.C. 272, 302 S.E.2d 164 (N.C. 1983) (findings required to resolve conflicts affecting suppression outcomes)
State v. Munsey, 342 N.C. 882, 467 S.E.2d 425 (N.C. 1996) (when no conflict exists, findings may be inferred)
State v. Smith, 278 N.C. 36, 178 S.E.2d 597 (N.C. 1971) (trial judge who hears witnesses is best positioned to make factual findings)
State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200, 539 S.E.2d 625 (N.C. 2000) (trial court findings are conclusive on appeal if supported by evidence)
State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 291 S.E.2d 618 (N.C. 1982) (deference to trial judge’s factual findings)
In re Estate of Trogdon, 330 N.C. 143, 409 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. 1991) (trial court better positioned to gauge witness demeanor)