The lead criminal law story this week relates to the Illinois deputy charged in connection with the fatal shooting of Sonya Massey in her Springfield, Illinois home on July 6. After the 36-year-old woman called 911 to report a suspicious person nearby, local deputies responded. Once deputies were inside the home, Massey reportedly acted strangely and seemed confused. At one point, she moved a pot of boiling water from the stove to the sink, prompting the officers to back away from her. Massey asked the officers where they were going, and one stated that they were moving away from the water. Massey replied with a religious rebuke. Deputy Grayson responded to this by drawing his pistol, pointing it at her, and threatening to shoot her. The woman apologized, put her hands up, and ducked, but Grayson quickly fired his weapon multiple times, hitting Massey in the head and killing her. When another deputy suggested getting a medical kit to help, Grayson advised that medical assistance was futile. The full incident was captured on body camera. Grayson has been charged with first-degree murder (and other charges) and was fired from the department. Another story reports that Grayson worked for six different law enforcement agencies over the last four years. Read on for more criminal law news.
Uncategorized
Welcome, Belal Elrahal!
I am pleased to announce that Belal Elrahal joined our faculty earlier this month. Belal is working in the field of criminal law and procedure and will specialize in impaired driving and motor vehicle law. Belal joins our colleague Melanie Crenshaw as co-faculty lead for the School of Government’s work with the state’s nearly 700 … Read more
Change to the Law of Juvenile Jurisdiction and Juvenile Transfer to Superior Court
Session Law 2024-17 enacts changes to the law regarding the scope of original juvenile jurisdiction beginning with offenses committed on or after December 1, 2024. Law changes regarding the existing process to transfer a case from juvenile to superior court will also take effect at that time. Read on for a description of the changes.
Confidential Informants, Motions to Reveal Identity, and Discovery: Part IV, How Federal and State Courts are Handling CI Video and Audio Recordings
Special thanks to Sheridan King, Summer Law Fellow at UNC SOG, for her significant contributions to the research and development of this post.
The previous post of this multi-part series on confidential informants (“CI’s”) delved into possible approaches to handling video and audio recordings of confidential informant activity (Parts I and II can be found here and here). CI activity is often recorded during the “main event” (the incident for which the defendant is indicted) and during “lead-up buys” (controlled purchases that create probable cause to search a location). Though trial courts throughout North Carolina regularly determine when CI recordings must be turned over to the defense, there is a scarcity of North Carolina appellate law on the subject. Thus, this post will look to other jurisdictions, including federal district courts and other states, to survey how judges are reckoning with these emerging issues pertaining to discovery, the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial, and the State’s interest in protecting the identity of informants.
News Roundup
The biggest news story of the week is a gunman’s attempt to assassinate former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday. The gunman, identified as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired eight rounds from a semiautomatic AR-style rifle in Trump’s direction. Trump was struck in the ear, rally attendee Corey Comperatore was killed, and two other men were critically wounded in the attack. The New York Times analyzed video, audio, and photographs of the event and created this narrative video timeline. The Times video ends with this question: Why was the former president allowed to remain on stage when the threat emerged minutes before shots rang out?
New Dashboard Shows Impact of Record Clearance Policies in North Carolina
At the Criminal Justice Innovation Lab, we’re focused on an evidence-based approach to criminal justice issues. We deal with a lot of data and try to make that information relevant and accessible to state and local leaders. Case in point, our new North Carolina Record Clearance Dashboard. On the Dashboard, you can choose various policy … Read more
U.S. Supreme Court Curtails Substitute Analyst Testimony
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. ___; 2024 WL 3074423 (June 21, 2024) (Kagan, J.). The case settled a lingering question in Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause jurisprudence: Does the Confrontation Clause permit substitute analyst testimony?
Courts have been split on the question, with North Carolina and Arizona among the jurisdictions that have generally allowed this type of expert testimony. Substitute analyst testimony arises when the person who performed forensic testing for use in a criminal trial is not available to testify, and the prosecution uses a substitute expert—one who was not necessarily involved in the testing—to present an independent opinion based on the original analyst’s forensic report. This practice derives from the evidentiary rule that an expert is allowed to rely on inadmissible information when it is used to form the basis of the expert’s opinion. N.C. R. Evid. 703. The underlying forensic report is treated as non-hearsay, offered only as the basis of the testifying expert’s opinion, not as substantive evidence. Instead, it is the testifying analyst’s independent opinion that is admitted substantively, and the defendant is only entitled to cross-examine the testifying expert (and not the person who performed the testing). This practice does not offend the Confrontation Clause, the argument has gone, because only testimonial hearsay statements are covered by the Confrontation Clause. Since the underlying forensic report is not offered for its truth when used as the basis of opinion, it is not hearsay and does not implicate the Confrontation Clause. State v. Ortiz-Zape, 367 N.C. 1 (2013)
Not so, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Today, we reject that view. When an expert conveys an absent analyst’s statements in support of his opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth.” Smith Slip op. at 1-2. Smith thus overrules Ortiz-Zape and its progeny on this question, and represents a significant shift in state law. (If this topic sounds familiar, I wrote a blog post last year previewing the Smith case.) Today’s post examines the impact and reach of Smith in North Carolina and offers advice for defenders facing substitute analyst issues. Read on for the details.
News Roundup
Back in May, it appeared that North Carolina lawmakers were moving toward a repeal of automatic expunctions of dismissed charges. However, in recent weeks, they have reversed course and a law providing for such expunctions was signed by the Governor this week. The law requires cases to be automatically expunged between six and seven months after all charges are dismissed. Expunged files are to be retained by the clerk and will be available to the person whose case was expunged as well as the district attorney. The new law incorporates recommendations of a committee tasked with addressing logistical problems that arose after the passage of a previous automatic expunction law.
Read on for more criminal law news.
Fearrington v. City of Greenville: North Carolina Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals and Upholds City’s Red Light Camera Enforcement Program as Constitutional
Two men fined in 2018 for failing to stop at red light camera locations in Greenville, NC filed declaratory judgment actions arguing that the program violated the Fines and Forfeitures Clause of the North Carolina Constitution because the local school board received less than the clear proceeds of the civil penalties the city collected. The Court of Appeals in Fearrington v. City of Greenville, 282 N.C. App. 218 (2022) (discussed here), agreed, concluding that the funding framework violated the state constitution. The North Carolina Supreme Court granted discretionary review and, in an opinion issued on May 23, 2024, reversed the court of appeals ruling on the constitutional issue. Fearrington v. City of Greenville, ___ N.C. ___, 900 S.E.2d 851 (2024).
This post will discuss red light camera programs, their relationship to the Fines and Forfeiture Clause, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Fearrington.