In the Matter of M.L.T.H., 200 N.C. App. 476 (2009)

In the juvenile’s appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress his confession, the State could not argue on appeal that the juvenile was not “in custody” when that was not argued in the trial court and where it was clear that everyone assumed he was in custody. The State did not assert at trial that the juvenile was not subjected to a custodial interrogation or that Miranda and juvenile warnings were not required. Instead, the arguments focused on the adequacy of the juvenile Miranda rights advisement. The State was not permitted to “swap horses” on appeal.