<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Criminal Law &#187; Jessica Smith</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;author=12" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu</link>
	<description>UNC School of Government Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 13:50:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Rule 404(b): The Requirement of Temporal Proximity</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4274</link>
		<comments>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4274#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:10:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Smith</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[404(b)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[temporal proximity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I noted in my last post on Rule 404(b) evidence, even when the evidence is relevant to an issue other than propensity or disposition, admissibility is “constrained by the requirements of similarity and temporal proximity.” State v. Beckelheimer, __ N.C. __, 726 S.E.2d 156, 159 (2012) (quoting State v. Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. 150, 154 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4274</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rule 404(b): The Requirement of Similarity</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4256</link>
		<comments>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4256#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 19:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Smith</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[404(b)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even when Rule 404(b) evidence is relevant to an issue other than propensity or disposition, admissibility is “constrained by the requirements of similarity and temporal proximity.” State v. Beckelheimer, __ N.C. __, 726 S.E.2d 156, 159 (2012) (quoting State v. Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. 150, 154 (2002)). In this, my fourth post on Rule 404(b) evidence, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4256</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rule 404(b): Proper Purpose Other than Propensity</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4247</link>
		<comments>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4247#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 13:21:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Smith</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[404(b)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[purposes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion subject to one exception: the evidence must be excluded if its only probative value is to show that the defendant had the propensity or disposition to commit the charged offense. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible, however, for other purposes. In this post, my third [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4247</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rule 404(b): Did He Really Do It?</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4234</link>
		<comments>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4234#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Smith</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[404(b)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peterson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4234</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this second post on Rule 404(b) evidence [editor's note: the first post in this occasional series is here], I’ll address a point that sometimes gets overlooked in the admissibility analysis: In order for Rule 404(b) evidence to be relevant, there must be sufficient evidence that the defendant committed the other act in question. State [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4234</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rule 404(b): The Bare Fact of Conviction Rule</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4209</link>
		<comments>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4209#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Smith</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[404(b)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bare fact of conviction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wilkerson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wynn]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4209</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Evidence Rule 404(b) allows for the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for purposes other than propensity, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation or plan. In a series of posts, I’ll explore common issues that arise regarding Rule 404(b). First up is the bare fact of conviction rule. As a general [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4209</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>N.C. Court of Appeals OKs Remote Two-Way Testimony for Ill Witnesses</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4190</link>
		<comments>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4190#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:13:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Smith</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confrontation clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remote testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seeling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I recently published a lengthy paper here examining the constitutionality of remote testimony in criminal trials under Crawford and the confrontation clause. In that paper I noted that the North Carolina Court of Appeals has held that Maryland v. Craig procedures for child victims survive Crawford. Maryland v. Craig was a pre-Crawford United States Supreme [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4190</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fourth Circuit Declines to Take a Restrictive View of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4176</link>
		<comments>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4176#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Smith</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confrontation clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crawford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forfeiture by wrongdoing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fourth circuit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’ve previously discussed the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the confrontation clause in this blog (here) and in numerous other publications (for example, here). In a nutshell, the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception extinguishes confrontation claims on the equitable grounds that a person should not be able to benefit from his or her wrongdoing. Forfeiture by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4176</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Claims That Survive an Unconditional Guilty Plea</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4168</link>
		<comments>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4168#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Smith</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guilty pleas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MAR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motion for appropriate relief]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4168</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lot of defendants plead guilty. And many of those defendants later try to challenge their pleas through the post-conviction process. Not surprisingly then, I get a lot of questions about what types of claims can be asserted in a motion for appropriate relief (MAR) challenging an unconditional guilty plea. As a general rule, a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4168</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are a Child&#8217;s Statements to a Treating Psychologist Admissible Under Hinnant?</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4157</link>
		<comments>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4157#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:16:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Smith</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child victims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hearsay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hinnant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychologists]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Suppose a child victim of sexual abuse is referred to a psychologist for counseling. In the course of treatment the child reveals details about the abuse. If the child doesn’t testify at the later sex abuse trial, are the child’s statements to the psychologist admissible under the Rule 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4157</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Silver Lining for the Defense in Chaidez?</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4147</link>
		<comments>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4147#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:56:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Smith</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chaidez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[padilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retroactivity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I previously posted here about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chaidez and its holding that Padilla does not apply retroactively. The Court’s ruling meant that lawful permanent resident Roselva Chaidez failed in her attempt to overturn her pre-Padilla federal convictions on the basis that her lawyer neglected to tell her that they would [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4147</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
