I have been covering developments around the legalization of hemp in North Carolina since 2018. Never did I suspect then that I would still be working on the topic all this time later, but here we are. My last post on In Re: J.B.P. covered the then most recent developments around probable cause and the odor of cannabis. That opinion was withdrawn and has yet to reissue, but subsequent cases have basically affirmed the logic on which the case was decided. This month, the Court of Appeals released State v. Ruffin, COA24-276, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 5, 2025), weighing in on evidentiary challenges to opinion evidence identifying a substance as marijuana, as well as on jury instructions for marijuana cases. This post examines these and other recent legal developments impacting the state’s criminal cannabis law. Read on for the details.
Phil Dixon
Machine-Generated Data, Lab Tests, and the Confrontation Clause
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the use of testimonial hearsay statements by an unavailable witness at a criminal trial, as does its state counterpart in Article I, Sec. 23 of the North Carolina Constitution. A hearsay statement is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth. A statement is testimonial if the primary purpose of the statement was to establish past facts for use at a later prosecution. Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237, 245 (2015). The Confrontation Clause does not protect against the admission of nontestimonial statements (although hearsay statements still must meet an exception or exemption). In a recent decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court analyzed a challenge to the admission of the defendant’s phone records offered by the State at trial. Overruling the Court of Appeals on the point, the North Carolina Supreme Court found that the phone records were nontestimonial as purely machine-generated data.” The case is a good reminder of the distinctions between testimonial and nontestimonial statements and may have implications for future confrontation issues. Read on for the details.
News Roundup
We have covered the extensive post-conviction and appellate proceedings of Richard Glossip’s death sentence many times before on the blog (most recently here). Glossip has been on death row in Oklahoma since his 1998 conviction for allegedly orchestrating the brutal killing of a hotel owner. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Glossip a new trial after finding that the prosecution knowingly failed to correct false and misleading testimony at trial. Specifically, the prosecution knew its star witness, Sneed, was lying when he denied having seen a psychiatrist and denied having been prescribed lithium, a medicine typically used to treat severe mental illnesses. Sneed admitted to killing the victim and agreed to testify against Glossip in exchange the State taking the death penalty off the table for Sneed’s role in the crime. According to the 5-3 majority: “Correcting Sneed’s lie would have undermined his credibility and revealed his willingness to lie under oath. . . Hence, there was a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed’s testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury.” Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, while Justice Barrett concurred and would have sent the case back to the Oklahoma appellate court (Justice Gorsuch recused himself from the case). If tried again, it would be Glossip’s third capital trial related to the killing. SCOTUSblog has the story here, or you can read the case for yourself here. Read on for more criminal law news.
Case Summary: U.S. Supreme Court (Jan. 21, 2025)
This post summarizes a criminal law decision published by the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 21, 2025.
News Roundup
As one of his first acts as in office, President Trump issued sweeping pardons and commutations for the people convicted of crimes stemming from their involvement in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Most of the defendants received full and unconditional pardons, while fourteen people convicted of seditious conspiracy received commutations of their sentences, according to this report by the AP. The President has also directed the U.S. Attorney General to dismiss the remaining pending prosecutions of January 6th defendants (around 450 cases). This sweeping grant of relief serves as a rejection by the executive branch of the outcomes of what was “the largest investigation in Justice Department history,” according to the story. Supporters of the move praised the President’s actions as undoing what they consider politically motivated prosecutions, while detractors have categorized the relief as a blow to the justice system, pointing to the hundreds of defendants duly convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers and other serious crimes. At least one defendant convicted of a misdemeanor relating to January 6th is attempting to refuse her pardon, although the legal support for such a move is unclear, according to this story. Additionally, President Trump issued a full pardon to Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, an online marketplace for drugs and other contraband. Ulbricht was convicted of various drug, conspiracy, and computer offenses in 2015 and was sentenced to life without parole. Read on for more criminal law news.
News Roundup
According to this story, the CEO of United Health Care, Brian Thompson, was walking through Manhattan on his way to conference when a masked gunman fired multiple shots from a 9 mm handgun, striking Mr. Thompson from behind and killing him. The suspect fled the scene and remains at large at the time of this writing. Authorities believe the shooter was specifically targeting Thompson, a belief reinforced by the discovery that shell casings at the scene were inscribed with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.” Police were able to obtain surveillance footage showing an image of the suspect from a local hostel. Thompson’s wife reported that he had received threats recently, but did not offer specifics. In addition to his wife, Thompson leaves behind two sons. Read on more for more criminal law news.