In the aftermath of the widespread destruction wrought by Hurricane Helene, federal and state officials have begun providing relief assistance to affected residents in western North Carolina. These efforts have been complicated by widespread misinformation regarding the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and others. This past weekend, someone called 911 to report that an armed man near a FEMA relief center was allegedly threatening to harm relief workers and who supposedly spoke of “truckloads of militia members” in the area. According to this report, FEMA took the threat seriously, suspending door to door visits with residents and temporarily scaling back relief efforts in response. The man in question was found with an assault rifle and a pistol and was charged with going armed to the terror of the public. The Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department ultimately determined that the man was acting alone and that the report of armed militias in the area was untrue. The Governor’s office, FEMA, and other agencies have denounced this incident and other instances of misleading and inaccurate information about disaster relief efforts. My colleague, Kristi Nickodem, recently published a blog post over at Coates’ Canons addressing what local governments can do to combat misinformation in this context, which you can read here. Read on for more criminal law news.
Phil Dixon
The Fourth Circuit Weighs in on THC-O and “Synthetic” THC
In September, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant decision affecting the hemp industry on the federal level. There has been an open question for some time regarding the legality of certain cannabinoids that do not naturally occur in the cannabis plant but can be created from hemp products. THC-O (tetrahydrocannabinol acetate) is an example of such a compound. State and federal criminal law both ban “synthetic THC.” What exactly counts as “synthetic” THC? I wrote a bit about this ambiguity in the law before, but Anderson v. Diamondback Investment Group, LLC, ___ F.4th ___; 2024 WL 4031401 (4th Cir. 2024), provides some of the first guidance on the issue in the age of legal hemp. Read on for the details.
State v. McLean Clarifies the Timeframe for Giving Oral Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals
Attorneys practicing in criminal superior court are likely familiar with the process of giving notice of appeal to the appellate division. Under Rule 4(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, a defendant can give notice by either (1) giving oral notice of appeal “at trial,” or (2) by filing a written notice of appeal within 14 days after entry of judgment and serving it on the State. A recent case explains what counts as “at trial” for purposes of giving notice of appeal. Under State v. McLean, COA 23-100, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Aug. 6, 2024), oral notice of appeal is considered made “at trial” and therefore timely as long as it is given within the session of superior court, which is typically one week. “[T]he period of time for Defendant to provide timely notice of appeal at trial commenced following sentencing and ended when the court session adjourned sine die.” McLean Slip op. at 8 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Although the defendant in McLean gave oral notice of appeal the morning after the pronouncement of the judgment in his case, the timing of the notice was proper, because the session had not yet ended. This post examines the holding and implications of the McLean decision.
News Roundup
The most significant criminal law story this week was the mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Barrow County, Georgia. Tragically, two teachers and two students were killed, and at least nine others were wounded. The people injured are expected to live. The suspect, a 14-year-old student at the school, is in custody facing murder charges. The AP reports that the juvenile was previously interviewed by law enforcement in connection with alleged online threats of a school shooting over a year ago. The juvenile’s father has also been charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter in connection with the shootings. The story notes that this is the 30th mass killing in the United States in 2024. Read on for more of the latest criminal law news.
Advice for Defenders Handling H & I Felonies in District Court
Shea wrote about changes to the law around the practice of entering low-level felony pleas in district court last fall, here. More and more districts have begun adopting the practice of accepting guilty pleas to class H and I felonies in district court since then. In light of the expansion of the practice across North Carolina, I wanted to remind defenders of the rules and best practices when entering a felony guilty plea in district court. Read on for the details.
Court of Appeals Holds Sight or Odor of Cannabis = Probable Cause
Author’s Note: The Court of Appeals withdrew the decision on which this post is based on August 30, 2024.
The Court of Appeals recently settled an issue that has been unresolved in the state for several years: In light of legal hemp, does the sight or odor of cannabis still provide probable cause to justify a search or arrest? Hemp and marijuana—both varieties of the cannabis plant—are indistinguishable by sight or smell. Since State v. Parker, 277 N.C. App. 531 (2021), the Court of Appeals has wrestled with the issue. Parker and subsequent cases repeatedly declined to decide the question, holding instead that officers had probable cause under the facts of each case based on the officer’s observation of suspected marijuana “plus” additional incriminating circumstances. Some trial courts had sometimes granted motions to suppress when the probable cause was based solely or primarily on the odor or sight of cannabis. See, e.g., State v. Springs, 292 N.C. App. 207 (2024) (reversing the trial court’s grant of motion to suppress). It seems we finally have an answer. According to In Re: J.B.P., No. COA23-269, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Aug. 6, 2024), the sight or smell of cannabis, standing alone, provides an officer with probable cause to believe marijuana may be found, just as it did before the advent of legal hemp. This post discusses the implications of the J.B.P. case and offers thoughts on defending marijuana prosecutions in its wake. Read on for the details.
Smith v. Arizona and Retroactivity
My colleagues have covered the retroactivity rules many times before on the blog but the analysis for determining the retroactivity of new federal rules has changed in the last few years. Considering that and the recent Confrontation Clause rule for substitute analyst testimony announced in Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. ___; 144 S.Ct. 1785 (2024) (summarized here), an update is in order. Today’s post reviews the federal retroactivity analysis and examines how it may be applied to Smith. Read on for the details.