Procedure

blank

Jury Argument — Part II

In a prior post on this topic, I addressed permissible jury argument. In this post and one that follows [editor’s note: coming next week], I address impermissible argument. The courts have identified several types of arguments that are improper. They include: Abusive Arguments. During a closing argument a lawyer may not become abusive. G.S. 15A-1230(a); … Read more

Must Officers’ Prior Misconduct Be Disclosed in Discovery?

I’ve had a whole bunch of phone calls lately raising the same basic issue: suppose that a prosecutor is aware that an officer has been dishonest or has engaged in other misconduct in the past. Must the prosecutor disclose the officer’s dishonesty or misconduct to the defendant in a pending case in which the officer … Read more

blank

Men Behaving Very Badly

As part of its ongoing coverage of the John Edwards trial, The News and Observer reported today that Edwards’ lawyer cross-examined former Edwards aide Andrew Young by reading from pages of Young’s memoir “The Politician.”  I’m guessing that Young’s recounting of his arrest for impaired driving in Chapter 8 of the book, fittingly titled “Men … Read more

Sufficient or Insufficient?

Under G.S. 14-208.18, it is a crime for certain sex offenders “to knowingly be at” certain locations, including “[o]n the premises of any place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors.” The court of appeals recently decided State v. Harris, a case concerning an indictment for that offense. The court’s opinion makes some interesting points, so I’ll set out the indictment, and then administer a quiz.

The indictment alleged that the defendant

did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously on the premises of Winget Park Elementary School, located at . . . Charlotte, North Carolina. A place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors and defendant is a registered sex offender.

On appeal, the defendant identified several alleged defects in the indictment. So here’s the quiz: which of the following problems, if any, did the court of appeals view as requiring relief for the defendant?

a. The omission of “go” or “be” from the phrase “did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously on the premises

b. The failure to allege “knowingly,” which is the mens rea term used in G.S. 14-208.18

c. The lack of any antecedent for the phrase “[a] place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors”

d. The failure to specify that the defendant’s reportable conviction was for an offense in Article 7A of Chapter 14

e. None of the above, the court determined that the indictment was sufficient

The answer is after the break.

Read more

blank

Providing Notice of Implied Consent Rights to a Deaf Defendant

Several earlier posts address the requirement that a defendant be notified of statutory rights related to implied consent testing before being requested to submit to a test of his breath, blood or other bodily fluid.  Posts here and here address whether notification of those rights must be provided in language that the defendant understands.  A … Read more

Does Brady Apply After a Conviction?

Everyone knows that under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), a prosecutor must disclose material exculpatory or mitigating evidence to the defense. But does Brady apply only prior to trial, or does the obligation continue after a defendant has been convicted? That’s one of the questions raised by this Washington Post article, which reports … Read more

blank

A Defense Win on a Newly Discovered Evidence Claim

I’m guessing that the criminal defense bar thinks that they have more strikes than hits in post-conviction proceedings. But a recent Court of Appeals case reminds us that it is possible to score on a motion for appropriate relief (MAR). In State v. Rhodes, the court affirmed a trial court ruling ordering a new trial … Read more

blank

Re-sentencing under G.S. 20-38.7: Who Gets It and What’s Game for Consideration?

I’ve written before about the General Assembly’s enactment of G.S. 20-38.7 to prevent defendants from manipulating the procedure for appealing district court convictions to superior court in order to escape enhanced punishment in impaired driving cases based upon prior convictions. G.S. 20-38.7(c) provides that “for any implied‑consent offense that is first tried in district court … Read more

blank

A Motion to Suppress a Prior Conviction Isn’t a Collateral Attack

You can’t always get what you want But if you try sometimes you might find You get what you need –The Rolling Stones It’s generally understood that a criminal defendant can’t invalidate an old conviction in connection with proceedings on new charges. This is known as the anti-collateral attack rule. Suppose for example that a … Read more

Can the State Obtain Appellate Review of a Judge’s Order Granting a Defendant’s MAR?

I’ve been asked a couple of times recently whether the state can obtain appellate review of a judge’s order granting a defendant’s motion for appropriate relief, or MAR. The questions have come up in the context of superior court proceedings, so that’s what this post will address. The answer might be different for district court … Read more