found in the safe should have been suppressed because it was discovered as the result of his pre-Miranda statement providing the officers with the combination to the safe. The statements themselves made by defendant prior to being advised of his Miranda rights, including his statement regarding the combination to the safe, were properly suppressed at trial. However, our Supreme Court has held that physical evidence obtained as a result of statements by a defendant made prior to receiving the necessary Miranda warnings need not be excluded. State v. May, 334 N.C. 609, 612, 434 S.E.2d 180, 182 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1198, 127 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1994), see, State v. Goodman, - N.C. App. -, 600 S.E.2d 28, 30-31, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 193, N.C. LEXIS 1262 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004) (<HOLDING>). We find the trial court’s holding that the
recognizing the importance of counties as political subdivisions of the state of north carolina and observing that the state constitutions limitations upon redistricting and apportionment uphold what the united states supreme court has termed traditional districting principles    such as compactness contiguity and respect for political subdivisions  citation omitted quoting shaw i 509 us at 647 113 s ct at 2827 125 l ed 2d at 528 holding that may is still controlling in north carolina in light of united states v pataneus 159 l ed 2d 667 124 s ct 2620 2004 in which the us supreme court held that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not apply to physical evidence discovered as a result of statements made by the defendant when no miranda warning was given holding that fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to both physical evidence and verbal statements holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 s ct 1219 140 l ed 2d 350 1998 expressly held that a prior conviction need not be proved to a jury and the united states supreme court has not held otherwise since holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court