State v. MooreÂ, 16-999

On 21 May 2015 a silver Nissan Altima sped away from Carrboro Officer Deshaies after he activated lights and siren; officer observed high speeds and traffic violations during the pursuit.
Officer Deshaies had earlier seen a man (later identified as Moore) with a white cloth on his head enter a convenience store from the driver’s side of that Altima; he later checked store surveillance.
Officer Deshaies viewed but could not copy the store’s surveillance footage; he used his cell phone to record the store video and produced that copy at trial.
The next day Officer Russell Suitt (who knew Moore) arrested Moore on unrelated warrants; while transporting him Moore made spontaneous statements that the car was in a “secret spot” and that he fled because he had been drinking.
Moore was convicted of fleeing to elude, resisting an officer, driving without a license, failing to heed blue light and siren, and reckless driving (with some counts arrested); he appealed, arguing the trial court erred by denying a continuance, admitting the cell‑phone copy of the surveillance video, and denying suppression of his statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance	State: trial court properly exercised discretion; counsel was appointed and no showing of prejudice	Moore: new counsel (appointed ~1 month before trial) was unprepared; denial violated right to effective assistance and due process	Denial not error of constitutional magnitude; Moore failed to show specific prejudice or reasonable grounds for continuance
Admission of cell‑phone copy of store surveillance video	State: copy accurately depicted store footage and identified Moore	Moore: foundation insufficient—no testimony about original recorder, its reliability, or chain for the copy	Trial court erred in admitting the video (foundation inadequate) but error was not prejudicial given other evidence (including defendant’s admissions)
Denial of suppression motion for statements in patrol car	State: statements were spontaneous and not elicited by interrogation; admissible	Moore: custodial statements made without Miranda warnings; officer radio exchange was functional equivalent of interrogation	No Miranda violation; statements were spontaneous and the radio exchange was not the functional equivalent of interrogation (Innis applies)

State v. Searles, 304 N.C. 149 (1981) (continuance motion review and prejudice requirement)
State v. McCullers, 341 N.C. 19 (1995) (continuance requires showing how additional time would have helped; affidavit/supporting facts)
State v. Snead, 368 N.C. 811 (2016) (requirements to authenticate surveillance/video recordings as substantive evidence)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (definition of interrogation: express questioning or functional equivalent likely to elicit incriminating response)
State v. DeCastro, 342 N.C. 667 (1996) (statements overheard in custody not necessarily interrogation where not directed to defendant)