Earlier this month, the North Carolina House overwhelmingly passed House Bill 551, An Act to Amend the Law and Constitution of North Carolina to Provide Better Protections and Safeguards to Victims. The bill now awaits consideration by the Senate, where it has been referred to the Committee on Rules and Operations. The legislation is championed by the advocacy group, Marsy’s Law for All, which is seeking to amend state constitutions and, ultimately, the U.S. Constitution to enshrine victims’ rights. What is the impetus for Marsy’s Law and how would enactment of the constitutional amendment proposed in House Bill 551 change North Carolina’s existing constitutional and statutory protections for victims?
Marsy’s Law is the colloquial name for the Victim’s Bill of Rights that was added to the California state constitution in 2008 and for similar amendments proposed and enacted to other state constitutions. The California amendment was backed by Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., whose sister, Marsy Nicholas, was killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Nicholas and his mother reportedly encountered the ex-boyfriend in the grocery store a week after the murder. To their surprise, he had been released on bail. In 2009, Henry Nicholas founded Marsy’s Law for All.
Don’t we already have constitutional protections for victims? Marsy’s Law for All seeks to amend state constitutions that don’t offer protections to crime victims. Yet, North Carolina’s constitution already recognizes victims’ rights. In 1995, voters approved the addition of “Section 37. Rights of victims of crime” to Article I of the North Carolina Constitution. That section enumerates several “basic rights” for victims of crimes, leaving it to legislators to prescribe by statute the types of victims and crimes covered. Notwithstanding these provisions, North Carolina is one of several states in which Marsy’s Law for All is seeking constitutional change.
What would change under House Bill 551? H.B. 551 proposes substantial amendments to current Article I, Section 37 of the North Carolina Constitution. If the bill is enacted, voters will be asked at the May 2018 primary election whether they are for or against a “[c]onstitutional amendment to strengthen protections for victims of crime, to establish certain, absolute basic rights for victims, and to ensure the enforcement of those rights.” If voters approve, the amendment would become effective January 1, 2019. The proposed amendment would change existing law in the following ways:
Victims would have constitutionally protected rights in many more cases. The amendment would expand rights to victims of delinquent acts as well as crimes. It also would expand the types of crimes that are covered by extending rights to victims of all felonies as well as other constitutionally enumerated misdemeanor offenses. Under current law, the legislature defines by statute the types of criminal proceedings in which victims’ rights apply. Under the proposed amendment, the legislature would not be authorized to modify the covered offenses.
Victims would have the right to be heard at criminal proceedings other than sentencing. Under current law, victims have a constitutional right to be heard at the defendant’s sentencing “in a manner prescribed by law” and “at other times as prescribed by law or deemed appropriate by the court.” G.S. § 15A-833 requires that admissible evidence of the impact of the crime on the victim be considered at sentencing. The proposed amendment would provide a victim with the right to be heard “at any proceeding involving a plea, sentencing, parole, release of the defendant, and any proceeding in which the victim’s rights are implicated, except for the defendant’s initial appearance.”
Victims’ rights would be broadly defined and not subject to statutory modification. Current Article 1, Section 37 sets forth victim’s rights “as prescribed by law.” These rights remain — and indeed are expanded — in the proposed amendment, but the authority of the legislature to prescribe how the rights are to be afforded is eliminated. For example, a crime victim currently has the right “as prescribed by law to be informed of and to be present at court proceedings” for the defendant. G.S. 15A-832 instructs the district attorney about the proper way in which to ascertain whether the victim wishes to be notified of court proceedings. The proposed constitutional amendment, in contrast, sets out a victim’s rights to “be given information about the crime” and other matters, but removes the language authorizing the legislature to prescribe how those rights are to be afforded. Similarly, victims currently have the “right as prescribed by law to receive restitution.” The amendment, in contrast, affords victims the absolute “right to receive full and timely restitution from the defendant.”
Victims would have several new constitutional rights. The proposed amendment creates the following new constitutional rights for victims: (1) “[t[he right to be reasonably protected from the defendant”; (2) “[t]he right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion to the case”; (3) the right to “assert and seek enforcement of his or her rights in any trial or appellate court” with jurisdiction over the case; and (4) “[t]he right to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.”
None of the new rights are qualified by the “as prescribed by law” language that qualifies many of the current constitutional rights afforded to victims. Thus, it is unclear how these rights would be afforded to victims. For example, what might reasonable protection include? Under current law, the district attorney’s office is required, whenever practical, to provide a secure waiting area for a victim during court proceedings that does not place the victim in close proximity to the defendant or the defendant’s family. G.S. 15A-832(d). The right to reasonable protection set forth in the amendment arguably requires protection of a far more comprehensive nature.
As to the second new right – the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay – the proposed amendment does not spell out how this right is to be reconciled with the State and the defendant’s right to a reasonable time to prepare for trial and the defendant’s right to the meaningful assistance of counsel. At a minimum, it seems that courts would be required to consider the interests of the victim in ruling on any motions to continue.
Regarding a victim’s right to assert his or her rights in any trial or appellate court, the amendment states that the victim “does not have party status,” the right to an attorney, or a collateral civil cause of action. It remains uncertain, however, what the procedure will be for a victim who wishes to assert such rights.
Finally, though the proposed amendment states that a victim’s right “to be treated with fairness and respect” does not “affect the State’s discovery obligations,” it is not clear what precisely this right entails.
Differing viewpoints. Proponents of Marsy’s Law in North Carolina say that enshrining victims’ rights in the state constitution is necessary and is preferable to allowing the legislature to modify those rights through the regular legislative process. Others have expressed concern that the proposed amendment could impinge on the role of the prosecutor, impose additional burdens on district attorneys’ offices, and could create adversarial relations between prosecutors and dissatisfied victims.
Have a perspective? Use the comment feature below to share your view.
The real problem is that Nicholas and our legislators need to be educated about the inequities of bail–and how they victimize everyone (except the wealthy). If a wealthy defendant can be freed because he can afford bail, but an indigent who stole food but can’t afford $100 or $1000 for bail remains in jail for months (until he pleads guilty just to get out), what we need to be protected from is the bail system.
Regarding the provision addressing unreasonable delay… at the point the court is considering a motion to continue, isn’t the “victim” merely an alleged victim?
This hits the legal nail on its head. Assumption of a victim in a legal proceeding presumes that the crime actually happened, effectively rendering it pointless to have a trial in the first place. I know that may worded in an extreme sense but it could definitely cause problems during normal proceedings, such as biases in favor against a defendant.
Of course “unreasonable delay” does not apply to the defendant, it applies to the court system and the state. As a concrete example I recently had to go to court 4 times because the sheriff’s department could or would not bring the defendant across the street from the jail to face me. Of course if I was willing to pay a lawyer, I would not have had to show up 4 times, but then I am further behind. SO the system is rigged to either require an expensive lawyer or let the issue drop. The little guy can no longer use the system to settle claims, no wonder the judges and attorneys like things they way they are and some take things into their own hands.
Yes, once adjudicated it is the guilty party’s duty to make restitution. When a person has a judgement against them the victim has to continue to pay the clerk of court to collect on the debt. In my case, it has now been 5 months since the judgement and the system has not collected from anyone but me. The guilty party here clearly has assets and they should be seized, but the clerk and sheriff clearly just want me to go away. The courts system is rigged in favor of the guilty, people are well past tired of it. Yes, the criminal justice system must presume innocence, but once guilt has been decided, it also needs to work to make the victim as whole as possible.
Right now that is not happening, I will vote for this amendment because it puts a victims’ post conviction rights at least equal to those of the guilty.
There are at least two sides to every story. This could help true victims. This could also help, fast track and railroad and crush innocent people who are falsely accused.
It is unfortunate that we are unable to place faith and trust in our legal system. But we cannot. Best thing a victim can do is stay vigilant, advocate for themselves and speak up loudly. It is actually exhausting.
Tell me what that looks like to you in real life. Should we just doubt everyone and treat the victim as a perpetrator?
From Hohfeld’s “Jural Correlatives:” “If someone has a right, it exists with respect to someone else who has a duty.” With respect to restitution, if a victim has a constitutional “right to receive full and timely restitution from the defendant,” how is this defendant’s “duty” to pay it enforced? Involuntary servitude? “Anyone, Anyone.. Bueller?”
Being the victim of a crime sucks in every respect and always has and always will. No law, edict nor mandate can ever change that and no amount of magical thinking will help. Simply “weaponizing” victim status, which is the practical effect of this legislation, will do nothing to either assist victims or punish the wrong-doers. It will just create an adversarial situation between crime victims and those charged with “representing” them in an already broken, underfunded system.
I am sick and tired of our government bodies naming laws after people. I thought we were a nation of “laws” and not “men”.
I am glad for the passing of this new law; however, I wonder what will actually change. In comparison to other countries, our legal system is more effective than most. But lack of integrity and sometimes pure apathy is still so rampant. I am a victim of a recent attack by someone that left me with a concussion. I was terrified at the first hearing that the charges would be dismissed. That is my experience with OC DA with this particular person who assaulted me. When I reviewed the defendant’s record, the DA previously dismissed 14 criminal charges against him, one of which involved the defendant locking the Carrboro fire Department in his yard by placing a metal lock on his fate. How does that get dismissed? I initiated a FoIA request and learned that Jim Woodall himself had dismissed the charge when he was an ADA, but he would not tell me why. The lack of clear direction in the DA’s office is unnerving.