A lawsuit has been filed against the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary, asserting that the state’s lack of assessment and treatment services has resulted in people with severe mental disabilities suffering in county jails while waiting months for psychiatric services. The complaint—which can be accessed here—centers on those who sit in jail for months or years if there are concerns about their capacity to proceed in their criminal case. The lawsuit contends that they wait, on average, two months for an assessment to be completed and nearly five months for treatment at a state psychiatric hospital. While waiting, they remain in jail, sometimes longer than they would be if convicted.
Brittany Bromell
Criminal Processes in the Context of the Pretrial Integrity Act
By now, court officials are familiar with the pretrial release laws as amended by the Pretrial Integrity Act. The application of G.S. 15A-533(b) regarding defendants charged with certain high-level felonies has been fairly straightforward. Application of the 48-hour provision, G.S. 15A-533(h), has not been as simple and has given rise to several questions, including what procedures to apply when a criminal process other than an arrest warrant is used.
Under the new law, when a defendant is arrested for a new offense while on pretrial release for a pending proceeding, a judge—rather than a magistrate—must set conditions of release for the new offense within the first 48 hours after arrest. This post addresses the application of this provision with regard to citations, summonses, orders for arrest, and indictments.
News Roundup
On Monday, the Louisiana Senate unanimously passed a bill that would make it a crime to knowingly import, transport, buy, sell, manufacture, or possess a child sex doll. According to proponents of the bill, the dolls resemble children 12 and younger and are used for sexual gratification (for all the Law & Order: SVU fans, this issue was illustrated in an episode of the current season). Depending on the circumstances, intent, and whether or not the doll is imported, a conviction could result in up to two years imprisonment and a fine of up to $20,000. A number of other states have passed laws outlawing child sex dolls since 2019, including Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, South Dakota, and Tennessee.
Immigration Consequences of DV Offenses: Stalking and Violation of DVPOs
Last week, in the first part of this two-part series, I talked about the “crime of domestic violence” ground of deportability for noncitizens and what role convictions of North Carolina offenses play in triggering that ground. This post covers immigration consequences of the “stalking” and “violation of protection orders” grounds of deportability.
Immigration Consequences of DV Offenses: Crimes of Domestic Violence
A noncitizen can lose status—that is, the right to be in the U.S.—and be forced to leave if he or she comes within a ground of deportability. In general, the grounds of deportability apply to noncitizens who have been lawfully “admitted.” This includes both lawful permanent residents (“green card” holders) and holders of temporary, nonimmigrant visas.
There are several criminal grounds of deportability in the federal immigration statutes, provided in Title 8, Section 1227 of the United States Code. One of these grounds is conviction of a crime of domestic violence. In order to be a crime of domestic violence under federal immigration law, the offense must meet the federal definition of a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. 16 and must also be against a person in a domestic relationship with the defendant. This provision of the statute also includes deportation for crimes of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment, but discussion of those grounds is outside the scope of this post.
This post is the first in a two-part series and examines immigration consequences of convictions of offenses involving domestic violence under North Carolina law. It is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of immigration law; rather, it assesses the immigration consequences of selected North Carolina offenses and only within the scope of the domestic violence ground of deportability.
News Roundup
A man convicted for a 2015 killing in New York has been released and his indictment has been dismissed solely because he was held at the wrong prison.
Terrence Lewis was serving a sentence of 22 years to life for second-degree murder in a maximum-security prison. In a February 5 decision, Judge Stephen Miller wrote that Monroe County, NY officials violated the federal “Interstate Agreement on Detainer’s Law” when they sent Lewis back to a federal prison in Pennsylvania—where he was serving a sentence for a drug conviction—as he awaited trial in the New York murder case after his indictment. The agreement says a prisoner charged with an unrelated crime in another jurisdiction must be held and tried in that jurisdiction before being returned to the place of their original imprisonment, or else the case in the other jurisdiction must be dismissed.
New Resource on the Pretrial Integrity Act
I am happy to announce that a new Administration of Justice Bulletin, The Pretrial Integrity Act, is now available. It answers several questions raised by the new pretrial release laws enacted by S.L. 2023-75. The bulletin explores the newly enacted changes, how they are affected by different charging documents, the impact of the new provisions on existing pretrial release laws, and potential challenges in implementation.
News Roundup
The long-awaited North Carolina sports betting law went into effect on Monday. House Bill 347, which was passed last summer, authorizes and regulates wagering on horse racing and on professional, college, and amateur sports. It allows up to twelve legal online sportsbooks and eight in-person sportsbooks to operate at professional sports venues in the state.
The law provides the following penalties for violations of its provisions:
- A Class 2 misdemeanor for knowingly engaging in wagering in violation of the new law;
- A Class 2 misdemeanor for any person under the age of 21 to engage in wagering;
- A Class G felony to influence or attempt to influence the outcome of any competition or aspect of any competition that is the subject of wagering; and
- A Class I felony for any applicant for a license under the new laws to willfully furnish, supply, or otherwise give false information on the license application.
News Roundup
A Wisconsin official who posted a photo of his marked ballot on Facebook during the April 2022 election had felony charges against him dropped Monday. Paul Buzzell, a member of a local school board, faced maximum penalties of 3.5 years behind bars and $10,000 in fines and would have been barred from holding elected office if convicted. Ozaukee County Judge Paul Malloy dismissed the charges against Buzzell, expressing that a state law prohibiting voters from showing their marked ballots to anyone else is in violation of the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
According to this AP article, there has been movement in other states in favor of allowing “ballot selfies.” In New Hampshire, a federal judge held that a state law barring an individual’s right to publish their ballot violated the First Amendment. Legislators in Michigan changed state law in 2019 to make ballot selfies legal. The Wisconsin Senate passed a bill in 2020 to legalize ballot selfies, but the proposal died in the state Assembly.
Keep reading for more criminal law news.