A UNC School of Government Blog
Previously, Jeff and I posted about the post-Melendez-Diaz decisions by the N.C. Court of Appeals in the Brennan and Brewington substitute analyst cases (those posts are available here, here, and here). In Brennan, the court concluded that testimony of a substitute analyst identifying a substance as cocaine base violated the defendant’s confrontation clause rights. Similarly, … Read more
Suppose that David Defendant is charged with driving while impaired based upon an incident on in which he drove his car off the road and crashed into a tree. The arresting officer testifies at trial that Defendant was unsteady on his feet at the scene of the accident and that she saw no signs of … Read more
As I mentioned in a recent news roundup, earlier this month the Supreme Court of North Carolina decided State v. Ward. The basic holding of the case is that the visual identification of controlled substances is not reliable enough to be admitted in criminal trials, and that a chemical analysis of such substances is normally … Read more
As I have discussed in a number of prior posts [editor’s note: the most recent of those posts is here], the North Carolina courts have been struggling with whether the Confrontation Clause, as interpreted the Court in Crawford v. Washington and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, allows for the use of substitute analysts. The petition for writ … Read more
Rule 702(a1) was enacted in 2006 (effective for hearings held August 21, 2006 or later) to render admissible two types of expert testimony on the issue of impairment: (1) testimony regarding the results of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test; and (2) testimony from a certified Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) regarding whether a person is … Read more
In a recent post, I suggested that by establishing a good foundation, the State may be able to overcome a confrontation clause objection to its use a substitute analyst in a drug case. In its recent opinion in State v. Brewington, the N.C. Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed reversible error by … Read more
As summarized in Jeff’s recent blog post, in State v. Brennan, the North Carolina Court of Appeals applied Locklear and Mobley and held that the defendant’s confrontation clause rights were violated by the testimony of a substitute analyst in a drug case. My own summaries of Locklear and Mobley are available here and here. Jeff … Read more
OK, that’s not really the title of this new Administration of Justice Bulletin by my colleague Jessie Smith, but it could be. It’s actually called Understanding the New Confrontation Clause Analysis: Crawford, Davis, and Melendez-Diaz. It’s designed to lay out the law in the clearest possible terms, including a flow chart on page 6 that … Read more
The court of appeals released a new batch of opinions today. I may post on others eventually, but the one that jumped out at me immediately is State v. Brennan. Brennan is a Confrontation Clause case. Most readers of this blog know that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), breathed new life into the … Read more
As readers of this blog know, Rule 404(b) provides that although evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove propensity, it may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment, or accident. N.C. R. Evid. 404(b). Even when … Read more