This post summarizes an opinion issued by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 15, 2020.
Jonathan Holbrook
Militias in North Carolina
In May of this year I wrote a blog post about protesters and demonstrators carrying firearms at their events. In the months since that post, a variation of that conduct has begun happening more frequently: armed militias showing up at other groups’ events, either as supporters or as opponents. The recent events in Kenosha have brought renewed media attention to this issue, but incidents involving armed militias have occurred all across the country this summer (see a few examples here, here, here, and here).
Lately I’ve been asked if these types of private militias are legal in North Carolina, and if so, whether they are permitted to “deploy” to protests as participants or security? This post provides a summary of the relevant statutes and the criminal offenses that may apply.
Holding or Dicta?
In the comments to a blog post I wrote about using unpublished cases, one reader suggested a follow-up topic: “Should do an article on dicta; what is it and is it precedent?”
At the time, I was lukewarm on the idea. Dicta are just the extraneous statements in a court opinion that are not part of the precedential holding. What else was there to say? But the question came back to my mind after I read Chavez v. McFadden, __ N.C. __, 843 S.E.2d 139 (June 5, 2020), where the state Supreme Court made a point of disavowing dicta in a related Court of Appeals decision, discussed here. I began digging a little deeper, and discovered that my casual attitude towards dicta was predicted by an article written nearly seventy years ago:
Dictum is one of the commonest yet least discussed of legal concepts. Every lawyer thinks he knows what it means, yet few lawyers think much more about it. […] The traditional view is that a dictum is a statement in an opinion not necessary to the decision of the case. This means nothing. The only statement in an appellate opinion strictly necessary to the decision of the case is the order of the court. A quibble like this shows how useless the definition is.
“Dictum Revisited,” 4 Stan. L. Rev. 509 (1952). So I decided to take a closer look at how we distinguish and classify dicta, and whether dicta have any value as precedent. It turns out that our theory and practice may not always line up.
Resurrecting the Good Faith Exception in North Carolina?
Conventional wisdom says that unlike the federal court system, we do not have a good faith exception under North Carolina law. Even though G.S. 15A-974 was amended in 2011 and now expressly provides for a statutory good faith exception, most practitioners agree that its use remains off limits under our state constitution unless and until State v. Carter is overruled.
If you had asked me a month ago, I would have confidently said “yep, that’s the law.” Today, I’m a little less sure. Two recent Court of Appeals decisions have renewed the question of whether Carter actually says what we think it does.
Case Summaries – North Carolina Court of Appeals (June 16, 2020)
This post summarizes published criminal cases issued by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on June 16, 2020.
As always, these summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free, searchable database of case annotations from 2008 to today.
Thanks to Chris Tyner for preparing the majority of these summaries.
Felony Murder: Limits of Agency
Under the felony murder rule, a death that occurs as the proximate result of the commission or attempted commission of another qualifying crime (robbery, kidnapping, felony involving use of a deadly weapon, and others) constitutes first-degree murder, even in the absence of premeditation and deliberation. See G.S. 14-17(a). Shea Denning wrote a great summary of the basic law on felony murder here, and she tackled the confusing merger doctrine here.
But one topic we haven’t yet covered on this blog is the issue of agency. Under North Carolina’s felony murder law, a defendant can only be held responsible for a death that was caused by himself or an accomplice to the crime, not by an adversary such as a police officer who shoots back. Recently, I was confronted with a couple interesting questions about this rule.
First, why is that the rule, and does it have to be?
Second, how does it apply to situations such as when an innocent bystander is killed by a stray bullet that could have come from either an accomplice or an adversary?
Demonstrating With Guns: G.S. 14-277.2
Over the past couple weeks, North Carolina has joined the growing list of states in which armed demonstrators have gathered to express their opposition to virus-related restrictions on economic activity and social gatherings, or to more generally express their opposition to any restrictions on their Second Amendment rights. Dressed in patriotic or military-style gear, and armed with a variety of openly displayed handguns, rifles, or even an (inert) AT-4 anti-tank weapon, these groups have processed along city streets and sidewalks or gathered in public locations like a historic cemetery and a downtown restaurant.
Now, particularly in light of an incident over the weekend where two local attorneys walking with their children felt threatened by a demonstrator wielding a large pipe wrench, a lot of people are asking the same question: are these armed demonstrations legal?
The question seems simple. The answer is more complicated.
Creative Sentencing in the Age of COVID-19
As the struggle to contain the COVID-19 crisis grinds on, including concerns about the possible spread of the virus in jails and prisons, there has been a renewed interest in finding alternatives to sentences that involve extended periods of incarceration. It will come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog that Jamie Markham has written about such alternatives many times over the years. But in light of the current health situation, I thought this would be a good opportunity to revisit some of those topics, collect them together in one post, and try to expand on a few of the suggestions and options.
I should also acknowledge that this post was prompted, at least in part, by the fact that I only recently learned about an unusual type of sentence known as the “Holbrook Holiday.”
Case Summaries – North Carolina Supreme Court (April 3, 2020) and United States Supreme Court (April 6 & March 23, 2020)
This post summarizes the published criminal cases from the North Carolina Supreme Court issued on April 3, 2020, and two decisions from the United States Supreme Court issued on April 6 and March 23, 2020.
Thanks to John Rubin and Chris Tyner for preparing the U.S. Supreme Court summaries.
Case Summaries – N.C. Court of Appeals (March 17, 2020)
This post summarizes the published criminal cases from the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued on March 17, 2020.