Comments on: State v. Byrd and Violations of DVPOs http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=443 UNC School of Government Blog Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:53:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Jamie Markham http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=443&cpage=1#comment-384 Jamie Markham Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:18:43 +0000 http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?p=443#comment-384 As Bob Farb mentioned in an email sent out yesterday morning, H 115, available here, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/PDF/H115v4.pdf, would add a provision to the Ch. 50B stating “The term ‘valid protective order,’ as used in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, 40 shall include an emergency or ex parte order entered under this Chapter.”

]]> By: NCProsecutor http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=443&cpage=1#comment-348 NCProsecutor Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:46:13 +0000 http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?p=443#comment-348 A prosecutor might also be able to argue that the second reason given by the Supreme Court was dicta, given that the first reason was sufficient to support the ruling. In any event, the reasoning of the Supreme Court with respect to ex parte orders flies in the face of the clear language of the statute in question, which describes the process by which an ex parte order is issued by the district court as “an ex parte hearing…”.

But a legislative fix wold probably be the better option.

]]>