Sample Forms and Colloquies

5. During the conversations between Sgt. Reynolds and the Defendant,
neither Sgt. Reynolds nor anyone else in his presence made any threats or promises to
the Defendant, nor was the Defendant told that he would be helped by making a
statement.
6. Initially, the Defendant denied any involvement in the crime, denying that
he was present at the time of the killing. The Defendant gave a statement to Sgt.
Reynolds, telling him that “Beth called Suzanne on Sunday night and told her that she
had got beat up by a girl in Gastonia. Suzanne and Beth were real good friends. This
is all I know and we did not go anywhere on Sunday night.”
7. While being transported to Gaston County, the Defendant indicated to the
officers that he had not been completely truthful and that he wanted to make a second
statement. Upon arrival at the _____________ in Gaston County, Defendant gave a
second statement to Sgt. Reynolds, during which he stated: “Beth, me, and Suzanne
went into the apartment. ‘Petey’ stayed in the car. I was in the apartment and standing
in the right corner of the apartment. I just walked toward a white male and he kicked
the barrel of a gun that I carried into the residence and the gun went off. There was a
lot of confusion in the room. We left in the light colored car and I heard at least three
shots at us. They (Beth and Petey) dropped us off at my house.”
8. Major J.R. Phillips, of the Gaston County Police Department, testified that
he also spoke with the Defendant about the events. During their conversation, Major
Phillips told the Defendant that Suzanne Jackson had already told the police that the
Defendant had shot the victim. This information was untrue and was provided to the
Defendant in order to influence him to make a statement. He also asked Defendant to
show him how he was holding the shotgun when it went off. The Defendant then stood
up and demonstrated, saying that the victim kicked the barrel of the shotgun and it went
off. In the opinion of Major Phillips, the Defendant did not appear to be intoxicated or
confused at the time of making this statement.
9. Defendant did not offer any evidence at the suppression hearing.
10. At no time did the Defendant indicate to either of the officers that he
wished to stop answering questions or that he wished to have an attorney present
during questioning.
11. Based upon the credible and believable evidence, no threats or promises
were made to the Defendant in order to induce him to make a statement concerning his
involvement in the present charge.
Upon the foregoing findings, all found by at least a preponderance of
the evidence, the Court concludes as a matter of law that:
1. None of the defendant's constitutional rights, either Federal or State, was
violated by his interrogation or statement;