State v. Bartlett

Defendant was charged with impaired driving. Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained after his arrest. At the suppression hearing held before Judge Abraham Jones, a material conflict in the evidence arose from a disagreement between two expert witnesses. Judge Jones orally granted Defendant’s motion but was not able to sign a proposed written order reflecting his decision before his term of office expired. Defendant subsequently presented the proposed order to Judge Orlando Hudson. Judge Hudson granted Defendant’s motion to suppress without hearing any evidence himself, finding that Defendant’s expert was credible and that no probable cause existed to support Defendant’s arrest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the oral ruling rendered by Judge Jones without reaching the State’s contention that Judge Hudson was without authority to sign the order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-977 requires the judge who presides at the suppression hearing to make the findings of fact necessary to decide the motion; and (2) in this case, although a second judge made the findings of fact necessary to resolve the material conflict in the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, he did so without hearing any evidence himself, and therefore, a new suppression hearing was required. View "State v. Bartlett" on Justia Law