My colleague Shea Denning, a frequent contributor to this blog in the area of motor vehicle law, has put together the ultimate authority on all things related to State v. Knoll, 322 N.C. 535 (1988). Her paper is a must-read for officers, magistrates, jailers, and lawyers on both sides of DWI cases. It discusses Knoll and its progeny, and talks about recent statutory changes designed to eliminate dismissals under Knoll (or to secure defendants’ right of access to witness, depending on your point of view).
The paper is available here.
what happens if someone is charged with a dui and felony inflicting serious injury and the injury is a coma? would not the defendant need to stay in jail until the person has recovered from the coma? should the dui be secured along with the felony inflicting serious injury since the dui is part of the basis for the felony injury? what happens to the bond after the injured person comes out of the coma? secured or unsecured? and yes, the aoc- cr-271 form was signed for “i do not wish to contact anyone.” the driver of the car had bloodwork done.
It seems with an implied consent arrest, keeping them out of custody is a much bigger issue than ensuring that a proper bond be set to elicit an appearance.
Just as a heads up, there’s a case in the Court of Appeals’ pipeline potentially relevant to Section III(c) of the paper — State v. Rackley, COA09-15 (heard w/o oral argument back in June)…The Court likely has been holding on to it until the Supreme Court decides what to do with the PDRs filed in State v. Fowler and State v. Palmer, because, following the CoA’s opinions in Fowler, 676 S.E.2d 523, and Palmer, 676 S.E.2d 559, there is a question as to whether the State had the right to appeal in Rackley in the first place (a PWC has been filed in Rackley, so the CoA may grant cert like it did in Palmer and Fowler since the Rackley appeal was perfected before the Fowler and Palmer opinions were issued).
The court of appeals issued its opinion in State v. Rackley today. The court dismissed the state’s appeal as interlocutory pursuant to State v. Fowler, which held that the State had no right to appeal the superior court’s order remanding the case to district court for entry of an order dismissing the case. The court declined to issue a writ of certiorari to address the merits of the state’s appeal.
The dismissal in Rackley is understandable but the denial of cert is a shameful waste of State resources which will necessitate extra time spent by DAs, trial judges, the AG’s office, and, yet again, the CoA since this case will undoubtedly get appealed back to the CoA, this time with a statutory right of appeal (15A-1432(a) to superior court and 15A-1432(e) to the CoA). Also, ya gotta love the Court’s reasoning — to “give immediate effect” to Fowler and Palmer? Um, those cases came out 5 months ago and were given immediate effect across the State. Sending Rackley back adds nothing….