Repository Collection 03
State v. Johnson
CASE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 9, 2026
This Source Verification Page documents the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in State v. Johnson, cited in Claim I of the Supplemental Motion. The opinion establishes the legal standard governing whether a confession is voluntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by requiring courts to evaluate the totality of the circumstances surrounding an interrogation.
Related SMAR Citation
"[State v. Johnson, 371 N.C. 870, 821 S.E.2d 822 (2018)]"
Case Name
State v. Johnson
Citation
371 N.C. 870, 821 S.E.2d 822 (2018)
Date
December 21, 2018
Verification Source
State v. Johnson, 371 N.C. 870, 821 S.E.2d 822 (2018)
Source Location
North Carolina Supreme Court
Highlighted Pages
14–15
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Pages 38–40, Paragraphs 73–78
Source Status
✔ Original judicial opinion obtained and reviewed.
✔ Relevant passages highlighted.
✔ Publicly available source.
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive.
Cited to Support
Lyle C. May's reliance upon State v. Johnson, 371 N.C. 870, 821 S.E.2d 822 (2018), for the legal standard governing the voluntariness of confessions under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Johnson decision establishes that courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances surrounding an interrogation to determine whether a defendant's statements were the product of a free and voluntary choice or whether the defendant's will was overborne by law enforcement conduct. May cites Johnson in support of his allegations that the circumstances surrounding his interrogation by the Asheville Police Department and investigators in Buncombe County, North Carolina —including continuous custody, physical restraints, fatigue, delayed Miranda warnings, alleged promises of release, mental-health issues, intoxication, youth, and the overall conduct of law enforcement officers— must be considered collectively rather than in isolation when determining whether his statements were knowing, voluntary, and admissible.
Supporting Documents
Official North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion
Official opinion of the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Highlighted Research Copy
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue Your Research
Return to Claim I
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim I.
Return to Source Verification Archive
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.