State v. WatsonÂ, 250 N.C. App. 173

On July 8, 2014 police arrested Tyrone Watson (age 16) on a warrant, transported him to a precinct, handcuffed and shackled him, and placed him in an interview room.
About 20 minutes after arrival, Detective Grosse read Watson a Juvenile Waiver of Rights form (including Miranda warnings and the statutory right to have a parent present) and filled in Watson’s personal data on the form.
Detective Grosse filled blanks in the first checkbox to indicate the juvenile’s parent (Rhonda Stevenson) was present and then handed the form to Watson to initial; Watson initialed the rights and the first checkbox (which—incorrectly—stated his mother was present), and both signed the form.
Detective Grosse interrogated Watson and obtained inculpatory statements; Watson was later indicted for attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon and moved to suppress his statements.
The trial court found (supported by the record and video) that the checkbox indicating the mother’s presence was an error, that Watson did not request his mother, and that his waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; the court denied suppression. Watson pleaded guilty and appealed.

Issue	State's Argument	Watson's Argument	Held
Whether Watson invoked his statutory right under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2101 to have a parent present during questioning	Watson was advised of the right and did not invoke it; his initialing of the form was an error and he proceeded to answer, so no invocation occurred	By initialing the box indicating his mother was present and not initialing the waiver-without-parent box, Watson unambiguously (or at least ambiguously) invoked his right to have a parent present, so further questioning required her presence and statements should be suppressed	Court held Watson did not invoke the right; factual findings (that the checkbox was an error and he did not request his mother) were supported by competent evidence, so waiver was valid and statements admissible
Whether, if Watson’s indication was ambiguous, the officer had a duty to clarify before continuing the interrogation	The trial court found no ambiguous invocation here; because Watson made no request, the officer had no unmet duty to clarify	If the juvenile’s statement is ambiguous, the officer must clarify the juvenile’s meaning before proceeding (per prior appellate authority) and failure to do so requires suppression	Court avoided deciding the unsettled legal question (Saldierna pending review) because it found no ambiguous invocation on the facts; therefore no duty-to-clarify issue required relief

State v. Johnson, 98 N.C. App. 290 (standard for reviewing suppression findings)
State v. Branham, 153 N.C. App. 91 (juvenile cannot be interrogated after requesting parent unless juvenile initiates further communication)
State v. Saldierna, 775 S.E.2d 326 (N.C. Ct. App.) (discusses officer’s duty to clarify ambiguous juvenile invocation; discretionary review allowed)
Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (U.S. Supreme Court cited for proposition about post-invocation interrogation rule)
State v. Eason, 336 N.C. 730 (trial court findings on admissibility of statements are conclusive if supported by competent evidence)