The court of appeals decided State v. Shelton, ___ N.C. App. ___ (2019) yesterday, determining that the evidence of the defendant’s impairment was sufficient when he took impairing drugs hours before crashing his vehicle into a pedestrian after his brakes failed. Two aspects of the case are of particular interest: (1) the court’s evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence in a case where no one opined that the defendant was impaired; and (2) how the State obtained evidence that drugs remained in the defendant’s system in the first place.
Evidence about the “Victim” in Self-Defense Cases
In self-defense cases, the defendant typically claims that the “victim” was actually the assailant and that the defendant needed to use force to defend himself, family, home, or other interests. Because of this role reversal, the rules of evidence allow the defendant to offer evidence to show that the victim was the assailant or at least that the defendant reasonably believed that the victim intended to do harm. In State v. Bass, ___ N.C. ___, 819 S.E.2d 322 (2018), the North Carolina Supreme Court clarified one form of evidence that a defendant may not offer about the victim in a self-defense case. This post reviews the evidence found impermissible in Bass as well as several types of evidence that remain permissible.
North Carolina’s First Criminal Justice Summit
In recent years my work at the School has shifted to focus on criminal justice policy. As I work in this area, several issues keep percolating up and capturing interest from a wide swath of judicial system stakeholders. Two such issues pertain to the “front end” of the justice system: overcriminalization and bail reform; two pertain to the “back end” of the system: fines and fees and the criminal record and collateral consequences. Of course, these issues aren’t just of interest in North Carolina—they are grabbing attention across the nation. I’m thus delighted to have the opportunity to explore all four of them at North Carolina’s first Criminal Justice Summit. At the Summit national and state experts with broad-ranging ideological perspectives will discuss these four issues, exploring how they impact justice, public safety and economic prosperity in North Carolina, and whether there is common ground to address them.
News Roundup
The Greensboro News & Record reports that four jurors in a Guilford County murder trial were followed from a parking area to the courthouse by a man wearing all red clothing, a color associated with a gang. In response to the incidents, Judge David Hall restricted the number of people who could be in the courtroom and ordered officers to be on the lookout for the man. Richard Allen Williamson eventually was detained by courthouse security in the lobby of the building, identified by the jurors, and charged with obstruction of justice. Keep reading for more news.
Frequency of Parole Reviews
North Carolina did away with parole for most crimes with the adoption of Structured Sentencing in 1994. Parole is still permitted in certain impaired driving cases, but infrequently granted in practice. Still, there are over 1,300 persons on parole in North Carolina. They are mostly former inmates who served time for serious offenses under Fair Sentencing (effective from 1981 to 1994) or other prior law. There are also over 2,000 inmates in prison serving sentences that are now or will one day be eligible for parole. Today’s post considers the law of how often those inmates are considered for parole.
U.S. Supreme Court Grants Review on Issue of Implied Consent
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari a few weeks ago to consider whether a state statute authorizing the withdrawal of blood from an unconscious driver suspected of impaired driving provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The case, Mitchell v. Wisconsin, arose in Wisconsin, but the issue may sound familiar to practitioners in North Carolina. Our state supreme court held in State v. Romano, 369 N.C. 678 (2017) (discussed here) that the warrantless withdrawal of blood from an unconscious DWI suspect pursuant to state statute when there was no exigency violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reached a different conclusion in Mitchell. The case provides the United States Supreme Court with an opportunity to tie up the ends it left loose in Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) by clarifying how implied consent laws authorizing blood draws without a suspect’s consent do or do not comport with the Fourth Amendment.
Chief Justice Martin to Resign
Many readers will by now have heard the news: Chief Justice Martin is stepping down to become the Dean of the Regent School of Law, a Christian law school in Virginia. This post looks back at his criminal justice legacy, and forward at the future of the court.
News Roundup
The ongoing federal government shutdown, now the longest in United States history, is undermining the FBI’s ability to protect the country from criminals and terrorists according to a report released this week by the FBI Agents Association. Entitled “Voices from the Field,” the report contains stories from agents across the country that detail the effect of the shutdown on the FBI’s work. Like other federal workers, agents currently are working without pay. The president of the Agents Association, Thomas O’Connor, appeared on the NewsHour on Tuesday to discuss the report. Keep reading for more news.
2019 Sentencing Commission Statistical Report Available
The North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission has just published its annual Structured Sentencing Statistical Report for Felonies and Misdemeanors. Today’s post covers some highlights from the report.
What May an Officer Do When a Suspect Runs Onto the Scene of a Search?
When law enforcement officers execute a search warrant authorizing the search of a private residence, they may detain, while the search is carried out, any occupant they discover on the premises. Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981). Officers do not need individualized suspicion that such a person is engaged in criminal activity justify his or her detention. The person’s mere presence on the premises subject to the search is sufficient to justify the seizure under this categorical rule. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005).
If a person leaves the immediate vicinity of the premises just before officers execute the warrant, the person may not be detained based on the search warrant alone. Instead, any such detention must be supported by reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013).
But what about a person who approaches a house while a warrant is being executed? Is that person an occupant who may be detained without particularized suspicion? The North Carolina Supreme Court recently considered that question in State v. Wilson, ___ N.C. ___, 821 S.E.2d 811 (2018).