A UNC School of Government Blog
In addition to contributing to this blog, I publish summaries of N.C. appellate court and U.S. Supreme Court decisions through my Criminal Law Listserv (you can sign up for those emails here). That job involves reading a lot of cases and probably explains why my eyeglass prescription has been getting steadily stronger. But a side … Read more
In 2012, a person on supervised probation for an offense that occurred before December 1, 2011 moves to another state without permission. Months later he is arrested there and brought back to North Carolina for a violation hearing. May he be revoked for absconding? I don’t think so. This post discusses why. Effective for offenses … Read more
Jeff previously posted his “cocktail party review” of significant criminal law legislation passed this year by the North Carolina General Assembly, or at least legislation people might be interested in asking you questions about. Consider this the après-party review, when we go through the entire house, look for anything left behind, and give everything a … Read more
About a year and a half ago I did a blog post here about trial in the defendant’s absence. The recent Court of Appeals case, State v. Anderson, suggests that a quick update is in order. As noted in my earlier post, the right to be present at trial is a personal right that may … Read more
Jeff wrote earlier this week about the court of appeals’ opinion in State v. Osterhoudt (August 21, 2012). Jeff’s post dealt with the court’s substantive analysis of whether the police officer who stopped the defendant had the reasonable, articulable suspicion required to render the stop lawful under the Fourth Amendment. I want to focus on … Read more
A probation violation must be willful. In this prior post I wrote about the burden-shifting process in which the State must prove to the court’s reasonable satisfaction that a violation has occurred, and then the defendant has an opportunity to show that the failure to comply was not willful. The issue often arises in the … Read more
A fatal defect in an indictment occurs when the indictment fails to allege an essential element of the crime charged. A fatal variance, by contrast, occurs when the facts brought out at trial don’t match up with those alleged in the indictment, and this difference occurs as to an essential element. Here are two illustrative … Read more
A criminal indictment must allege an offense date. G.S. 15A-924(a)(4) provides that a criminal pleading must contain “[a] statement or cross reference in each count indicating that the offense charged was committed on, or on or about, a designated date, or during a designated period of time.” The statutory short forms reiterate this requirement. See, … Read more
In yesterday’s post I set out the basics of the Bruton rule. Put simply, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), held that a defendant’s confrontation clause rights are violated when a non-testifying codefendant’s confession naming the defendant as a participant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury … Read more
Although recent confrontation clause litigation has focused on the new Crawford rule, the Bruton rule continues to create issues in joint trials of codefendants. In this post I’ll give you a primer on Bruton. In a follow-up post I’ll discuss Crawford’s implications on the Bruton rule. The Rule. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 … Read more