State v. SaldiernaÂ, 254 N.C. App. 446

Felix Ricardo Saldierna, age 16, was arrested on January 9, 2013, in connection with multiple residential break-ins in Charlotte; he speaks primarily Spanish and had an eighth-grade education.
Before interrogation Detective Kelly gave Miranda-style and juvenile rights orally and presented English and Spanish waiver forms; Saldierna signed the English form and initialed the rights boxes.
After signing, Saldierna asked to call his mother; officers allowed a phone call but he could not reach her; interrogation then proceeded and Saldierna confessed.
Saldierna moved to suppress, arguing his waiver and confession were not knowing, willing, and understanding under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2101(d) and the Constitution.
The trial court found he understood and knowingly waived his rights and denied suppression; this Court initially reversed on the ground an ambiguous request to call a parent required clarification; the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed that aspect (holding the request was not a clear invocation) but remanded to decide whether the waiver itself was valid.
On remand the Court of Appeals held the totality of circumstances showed Saldierna did not knowingly, willingly, and understandingly waive his rights, and ordered suppression and vacated the guilty pleas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Saldierna)	Held
Whether Saldierna’s request to call his mother invoked his statutory right to have a parent present during questioning	The request was ambiguous and did not clearly invoke the right to have a parent present; no clear invocation occurred	The request to call his mother evidenced he wanted parental involvement and should have been treated as invocation	Held by NC Supreme Court: request was not a clear invocation (Supreme Court resolved this earlier)
Whether Saldierna knowingly, willingly, and understandingly waived his juvenile and constitutional rights such that his custodial confession is admissible	The State argued waiver form, oral advisements, and signature established a valid waiver by preponderance of the evidence	Saldierna argued age, limited English, low education, unintelligible/ambiguous verbal responses, post‑signature request to call his mother, and interrogation tactics undermined any valid waiver	Held by Court of Appeals on remand: waiver was not knowingly, willingly, and understandingly made; confession must be suppressed; convictions vacated

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes custodial warning requirements)
Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596 (juvenile confessions require scrutiny; warnings alone may not show voluntariness)
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (assessing voluntariness of juvenile waiver under totality of circumstances)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (juveniles require special procedural protections)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (juvenile status is relevant to custodial interrogation analysis)
State v. Simpson, 314 N.C. 359 (written waiver is strong evidence but not necessarily sufficient)
State v. Oglesby, 361 N.C. 550 (court must find juvenile knowingly, willingly, and understandingly waived rights before admitting custodial statements)
State v. Reid, 335 N.C. 647 (totality of circumstances scrutiny for juvenile waivers)