State v. Oglesby, 361 N.C. 550

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a juvenile's incriminating statement did not require suppression under N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101 because the aunt whom the juvenile requested to call was not a statutory guardian or custodian. The court exercised its discretion to review the suppression issue despite a preservation problem, affirmed the Court of Appeals in part, and vacated and remanded in part for harmless-error review of sentencing issues under Blakely. Review of additional issues was deemed improvidently allowed.

Holdings

1. North Carolina Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2) is invalid to the extent it conflicts with North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(1), which requires renewal of an objection at trial to preserve a pretrial evidentiary ruling for appellate review.
2. An aunt who lacks a legally established guardianship or custodial relationship is not a statutory guardian or custodian under N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101; therefore, the juvenile's statement was not required to be suppressed merely because he requested to telephone his aunt.
3. Section 7B-2101 applies to a person who meets the statutory definition of juvenile even if that person is tried as an adult.
4. The Court of Appeals erred by treating the Blakely sentencing error as structural error; the issue must instead be reviewed for harmless error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Oglesby's incriminating statement had to be suppressed under N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101 because he requested to telephone his aunt during custodial interrogation.
2. Whether the pretrial suppression issue was preserved for appellate review without renewal of the objection at trial.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals properly treated Blakely error in Oglesby's aggravated-range robbery sentences as structural error.
4. Whether the additional issues concerning leg shackles and the sufficiency of the murder indictment warranted discretionary review.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded