Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
State v. Castaneda, 215 N.C. App. 144 (Aug. 16, 2011)
The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to redact an officer’s statements in a transcript of an interview of the defendant in which the officer accused the defendant of telling a “lie” and giving an account of the events that was “bullshit” and like “the shit you see in the movies.” The defendant argued that these statements were inadmissible opinion evidence about the defendant’s credibility. The court noted that issue of the admissibility of an interrogator's statements during an interview that the suspect is being untruthful has not been decided by North Carolina's appellate courts. It concluded that because the officer’s statements were part of an interrogation technique designed to show the defendant that the detectives were aware of the holes and discrepancies in his story and were not made for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to the defendant's credibility or veracity at trial, the trial court properly admitted the evidence. The court went on to note that investigators’ comments reflecting on the suspect’s truthfulness are not, however, always admissible. It explained that an interrogator's comments that he or she believes the suspect is lying are admissible only to the extent that they provide context to a relevant answer by the suspect. Here, the officer’s statements that he believed the defendant to be lying were admissible because they provided context for the defendant’s inculpatory responses. For similar reasons the court rejected the defendant’s argument that admission of these statements violated Rule 403.