Whose Burden is it?
The State’s failure to accord a defendant his or her statutory implied consent rights as set forth in G.S. 20-16.2 may render the results of any ensuing breath test inadmissible. When a […]
February 19, 2013
The State’s failure to accord a defendant his or her statutory implied consent rights as set forth in G.S. 20-16.2 may render the results of any ensuing breath test inadmissible. When a […]
February 12, 2013
This post discusses what may be the single most common error in habitual felon proceedings: having a defendant stipulate, rather than plead guilty, to being a habitual felon. Must plead […]
February 11, 2013
I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the Garden State, but it seems like there are a lot of people here in North Carolina with criminal records from New Jersey. […]
February 5, 2013
Many veteran prosecutors know the rule, “plead in the conjunctive.” In other words, in an indictment or other charging document, join different theories of the crime with the word “and” […]
February 4, 2013
Magistrates walk a tight rope of sorts in setting conditions of pretrial release for defendants charged with impaired driving offenses. In addition to taking into account all of the factors […]
January 29, 2013
Yesterday was Data Privacy Day, making this a good time to recap some recent developments in law enforcement access to email and other electronic communications. Data Privacy Day. You’re probably […]
January 17, 2013
Kelvin Wilson’s DWI case made the front page of Lawyer’s Weekly last January. Wilson was arrested for impaired driving in Winston-Salem and taken to the hospital. When he physically resisted […]
January 10, 2013
In a post here I discussed a view of the person. In this post I’ll address the more common issue of a jury view. A trial judge may allow a […]
January 9, 2013
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court decided an important competency case. Let’s start the discussion with a quiz. Which of the following statements is true? a. A trial may be […]
November 28, 2012
G.S. 14-196.3 prohibits “cyberstalking,” which the statute generally defines to mean using electronic communications to threaten, extort, make an abusive or embarrassing false statement about, or repeatedly harass another person. […]