State v. Quick, 226 N.C. App. 541

Defendant was in custody and subjected to custodial interrogation; Miranda rights were read at 12:32 p.m. and he requested his attorney, attempting to contact counsel.
After failing to contact counsel, Defendant reaffirmed the request for an attorney.
Detective Jackson told Defendant that an attorney would not help with forthcoming warrants, and Defendant said, “We need to talk.”
Defendant was re-advised of Miranda rights at 12:39 p.m.; waiver form signed at 12:48 p.m. and witnessed at 12:59 p.m. indicating a willingness to talk without counsel.
Defendant was indicted on multiple felonies; he moved to suppress the statements on Sixth Amendment grounds; the trial court granted the suppression order on 14 May 2012.
The State appeals, and the appellate court affirms the suppression order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes	State argues lack of custody.	Quick contends custody existed.	Issue not reached; court did not consider custody ruling.
Whether Defendant initiated contact after requesting counsel	State contends Defendant reinitiated communication.	Quick did not initiate after requesting counsel.	Court held Defendant did not initiate; waiver invalid.
Whether any waiver of Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent	State argues waiver was knowing and intelligent.	Quick argues waiver not knowing and intelligent due to age, inexperience, and circumstances.	Court found waiver not knowing and intelligent.

Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1980) (definition of interrogation; police should know comments likely to elicit incriminating response)
Edwards v. Arizona, 452 U.S. 477 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1981) (right to counsel triggers cessation of questioning until counsel present)
State v. Dix, 194 N.C. App. 151 (N.C. App. 2008) (reinitiation rule under Miranda in NC)
State v. Tucker, 331 N.C. 12 (N.C. 1992) (waiver must be knowing and intelligent; totality of circumstances)
State v. Brown, 112 N.C. App. 390 (N.C. App. 1993) (factors for determining knowing and intelligent waiver)
In re J.D.B., 196 N.C. App. 234 (N.C. App. 2009) (age as factor in voluntariness/knowing waiver under totality)
State v. Allen, 200 N.C. App. 709 (N.C. App. 2009) (distinguishes interrogation from normal statements)
State v. Thomas, 310 N.C. 369 (N.C. 1984) (off-hand remark not interrogation; distinction from present case)
State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132 (N.C. 1982) (standard of review and suppression framework)
State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200 (N.C. 2000) (state-of-proof for appeal on suppression)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1981) (precedent on right to counsel during custodial interrogation)