blank

When Officers Are Above the Law

The television news magazine  20/20 aired video footage last fall of North Carolina law enforcement officers speeding on Interstate 40 near Raleigh. Reporters followed the police vehicles to determine whether they were chasing a suspect, rushing to a crime scene, or otherwise involved in an emergency. None were. One officer drove directly to a doughnut … Read more

blank

Hearsay Exceptions: Public Records & Reports

In my last blog post on hearsay exceptions, I discussed the business records exception. Here, I’ll address the hearsay exception for public records and reports. Rule 803(8) provides a hearsay exception for “[r]ecords, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth: (A)       the activities of the office or … Read more

blank

Hearsay Exceptions: Business Records

Continuing my series on commonly used hearsay exceptions, we arrive, in this post, at the business records exception. This one comes up a lot in criminal cases. Here are the basics. Covered Records. The exception applies to “a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses.” N.C. … Read more

blank

Hearsay Exceptions: Recorded Recollection

In a series of blog posts, I’ve been tackling the most common hearsay exceptions. This post focuses on the Rule 803(5) exception for recorded recollections. N.C. Rule 803(5) contains a hearsay exception for “[a] memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable him … Read more

blank

No Checkpoint Policy? No Checkpoint Evidence.

Regular and well-publicized checkpoints are an important component of the State’s effort to curtail impaired driving. Checkpoints provide specific as well as general deterrence. A handful of impaired drivers typically are arrested at any given checking station and subsequently prosecuted for impaired driving. Many more drivers than are stopped hear about the checkpoint. That publicity … Read more

blank

Hearsay Exceptions: Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition

I’ve previously blogged about hearsay exceptions for admissions by party-opponents (here), present sense impressions and excited utterances (here), and statements for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment (here). In this post I’ll focus on the Rule 803(3) exception for statements of then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. Remember that unlike the Rule 804 exceptions, … Read more

blank

May Magistrates Be Compelled to Testify about Their Decision-Making Processes?

When a defendant move to dismiss DWI charges based on a violation of his pre-trial release rights, the State’s first response is predictable: Subpoena the magistrate who presided over the defendant’s initial appearance. And in case after case, our appellate courts have considered testimony from magistrates in determining whether a defendant’s rights to pretrial release … Read more

blank

Hearsay Exceptions: Present Sense Impressions & Excited Utterances

Rule 803 sets out twenty-three hearsay exceptions that apply regardless of the declarant’s availability. Two that arise with some frequency in criminal cases are present sense impressions and excited utterances. Here’s what you need to know about those exceptions. Present Sense Impression. Rule 803(1) provides an exception for “[a] statement describing or explaining an event … Read more

blank

Hearsay Exceptions: Admissions by Party-Opponents

Evidence Rule 801(d) sets out a hearsay exception for “Admissions by a Party-Opponent.” If you’re not clear on that rule, read on. The rule says that a statement is admissible under this exception if it is “offered against a party” and is (A)  his or her own statement, in an individual or representative capacity; (B)  … Read more

blank

Re-examining Implied Consent after McNeely, Part III

The first two posts in this series (here and here) discussed opinions from state supreme courts in Arizona and Minnesota considering, post-McNeely v. Missouri, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013), whether a suspect’s submission to implied consent testing was voluntary consent within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This post discusses why that sort of analysis is … Read more