The advent of cannabis legalization across the country has led to a proliferation of new types of cannabis products. There are skin patches, food and drinks (for humans and pets), vaporizer or “vape” cartridges (or “carts”), and different concentrate or extract products (“dabs”, “wax” or “shatter”, among other names). [Click that last link and scroll down to see a chart listing the different forms of extracts and their names.] The products can be made from lawful hemp, or from illegal marijuana alike. The illegal versions have found their way into North Carolina, and questions abound regarding how to handle these cases. The questions most commonly involve wax and cartridges, so this post takes a look at the issues surrounding those cases (leaving the skin patches and edibles for another day).
Phil Dixon
![blank](https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dixon_Phil-1-150x150.jpg)
Case Summaries–Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Oct. 2019)
This post summarizes published decisions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that may be of interest to state criminal practitioners from October, 2019.
![blank](https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dixon_Phil-1-150x150.jpg)
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (October 15, 2019)
This post summarizes published criminal decisions (and two other decisions of note) from the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided on October 15, 2019.
![blank](https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dixon_Phil-1-150x150.jpg)
Case Summaries–Fourth Circuit Decisions (Sept. 2019)
This post summarizes published decisions from the Fourth Circuit of interest to state practitioners from September, 2019.
![blank](https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dixon_Phil-1-150x150.jpg)
Sufficiency vs. Admissibility: Drug I.D. after State v. Osborne
In August, the North Carolina Supreme Court weighed in on drug identification once again in State v. Osborne, ___ N.C. ___ (August 16, 2019). I wrote about the earlier Court of Appeals decision in the case, here. The new Osborne decision clarifies the application of drug identification rules as well as sufficiency of the evidence in this context.
![blank](https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dixon_Phil-1-150x150.jpg)
Case Summaries–Fourth Circuit Decisions (August 2019)
This post summarizes decisions published during August 2019 by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that are of interest to state practitioners.
![blank](https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dixon_Phil-1-150x150.jpg)
Trapped but not Entrapped? State v. Keller
Back in May, a divided Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on entrapment in an online solicitation of a minor case. Entrapment isn’t exactly a common defense (as Jeff noted here). When it comes up, it’s often in drug cases, but it can also arise in computer solicitation cases where law enforcement officers pretend to be underage. State v. Keller, ___ N.C. App. ___, 828 S.E.2d 578 (May 21, 2019), review allowed, ___ N.C. ___ (August 14, 2019), is an example of such a case and appears to be the second reported decision dealing directly with the defense in this context, so I wanted to flag it for readers. Fair warning, this post recounts some of the sexually graphic discussions at issue in the case.
![blank](https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dixon_Phil-1-150x150.jpg)
Missing Witnesses, Mistrials, and Manifest Necessity
The Fourth Circuit recently issued a decision prohibiting retrial of a defendant charged with murder following a mistrial. The government obtained the mistrial over the defendant’s objection when a key witness could not be located during the trial. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit found that no manifest necessity justified the mistrial and that double jeopardy prohibited another attempt by the government to convict the defendant. I previously wrote about mistrials and double jeopardy here, and I wanted to flag this case for readers for its treatment of missing witnesses in the mistrial context. The case is Seay v. Cannon, ___ F.3d ___, 2019 WL 2552953 (4th Cir., June 21, 2019).
![blank](https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dixon_Phil-1-150x150.jpg)
Sharks, Minnows, and the Drug War
A new study by UNC professors raises questions about how we think about drug prosecutions. In Sharks and Minnows in the War on Drugs: A Study of Quantity, Race, and Drug Type in Drug Arrests, the authors reviewed more than 700,000 drug arrests and examined the race of the arrestee, the type of drugs involved, and the quantity of drugs involved. According to the authors, several important points emerge from the data: 1) The vast majority of all drug arrests are for marijuana; 2) The vast majority of all drug arrests are for very small amounts of drugs; 3) People of color are disproportionately arrested for drugs; 4) Such disparities are likely due to the types of drugs targeted by law enforcement and not due to any racial group’s greater involvement in the drug trade. Their study challenges the common rationale for prosecuting low level drug offenders: that in order to catch the big fish (the “sharks”), we must first catch the small fish (the “minnows”). “A drug war premised on hunting great white sharks instead scoops up mostly minnows, and disproportionately ones of color.” Joseph Kennedy, Issac Unah, & Kasi Wahlers, Sharks and Minnows in the War on Drugs: A Study of Quantity, Race, and Drug Type in Drug Arrests, 52 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 729, 730 (2018) (citations hereafter are to the page numbers of the pdf file linked above). The authors argue that their data supports changing the way we approach drug prosecutions by eliminating felony liability in cases involving a gram or less of any drug. This post examines some of those findings.