A string of recent cases have shown what absconding isn’t. A case from the court of appeals this week gives us an example of what absconding is.
Appellate Bracketology
This March, you almost need a bracket to keep up with recent personnel changes in the state’s judicial branch. Not only were a handful of new appellate judges elected to office in 2018, but, just in the last month, the governor appointed a new chief justice and announced plans to appoint a sitting court of appeals judge to fill the associate justice seat she vacated. In the same time frame, the General Assembly passed legislation to prevent the departure of a sitting court of appeals judge from reducing the size of that court. Having trouble keeping up? This post will review recent events impacting the composition of the state’s appellate courts and judicial branch leadership and preview potential changes to come.
Juvenile Justice Changes in Federal Law
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA) is the central federal law that establishes core requirements for state juvenile justice systems. 34 USC §111. In return for compliance with these core requirements, the statute authorizes federal funding for states to use in their juvenile justice systems. The JJDPA expired in 2007 and was recently reauthorized in the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018. Public Law No 115-385. The reauthorized statute made several significant amendments to the JJDPA. In this blog post I will discuss three of the highlights: a new focus on evidence-based and promising programs and practices, changes in the disproportionate minority contact core requirement, and new requirements regarding identification and treatment of mental health and substance use disorders.
Is a Single Drug Sale from a Residence Enough to Support a Conviction for Maintaining a Dwelling?
Last week, the court of appeals decided State v. Miller, a case in which the defendant was convicted of maintaining a dwelling based almost entirely on the fact that he conducted a drug sale there. Would the court of appeals find the evidence sufficient under State v. Rogers, __ N.C. __, 817 S.E.2d 150 (2018), which substantially expanded the scope of maintaining a dwelling and related offenses?
News Roundup
A stunning and tragic mass shooting in New Zealand late last week is one of the biggest international criminal law news stories in recent memory. Last Friday, an Australian man motivated by racism killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch. In a disturbing use of modern technology, the attack was streamed live to Facebook from a camera the gunman wore on a helmet. News reports say that the man was active on right-wing white nationalist internet forums, and that he posted a lengthy manifesto to one such forum just before the attack. In that document, he reportedly said that in addition to stoking racial discord, one of his goals was to further divide Americans on the controversial issue of gun laws. Keep reading for more news.
Overcriminalization & Ordinance Violations as Crimes
Think you can consult the North Carolina General Statutes to know everything that’s been made criminal in North Carolina? Think again. Under state law, counties, cities, towns, and metropolitan sewerage districts have authority to create crimes through local ordinances. G.S. 14-4(a) (providing that, as a general rule, violation of such an ordinance is a Class 3 misdemeanor). Apparently, some local governments don’t realize that when they write ordinance violations they are creating crimes. What makes me say this? A 2018 law (S.L. 2018-69) required cities and towns that have enacted an ordinance punishable pursuant to G.S. 14‑4(a) to “create a list of applicable ordinances with a description of the conduct subject to criminal punishment in each ordinance” and submit it to certain Committees of the General Assembly by December 2018. At least one town reported that its ordinances don’t create any crimes, but that statement is contradicted by the town’s own Code of Ordinances which creates a host of crimes including curfew violations. (Want to check? The submissions are here).
Court Vacates Stalking Convictions on First Amendment Grounds
Yesterday the court of appeals vacated Brady Lorenzo Shackelford’s convictions for felony stalking on the basis that the prosecution of Shackelford for violating G.S. 14-277.3A impermissibly infringed upon his constitutional right to free speech. This post will review the court’s opinion in State v. Shackelford, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2019), consider how it might affect future prosecutions, and suggest statutory amendments to stave off future constitutional challenges.
Robbery and the Claim of Right Defense
James gives his friend Angela some money to purchase drugs. Angela doesn’t get the drugs and doesn’t return the money. James then comes to Angela’s house to confront her and get his money back, barging into the house and threatening her with a gun. James ultimately leaves without any money but is soon charged with attempted armed robbery. He testifies at trial that he had no intent to commit robbery; he was simply trying to get his property back. Angela admits on the stand that she had the money and never returned it or bought the drugs. James moves to dismiss, arguing that the State’s evidence is insufficient to establish any felonious intent—because he had a legitimate claim to the property, he couldn’t have committed robbery.
Loading ...Cast your vote, and read on for the answer.
Do the Mandatory Minimum Drug Trafficking Fines Apply to Trafficking Defendants Convicted as Habitual Felons?
Recently, I was teaching a class about the habitual felon laws when a participant asked a question that I had never considered. We know that a defendant convicted of drug trafficking may be convicted as a habitual felon, and when that happens, the defendant’s term of imprisonment is determined under Structured Sentencing based on the elevated offense class set forth in the habitual felon statutes, not based on the mandatory term of imprisonment set forth in the trafficking statute. But what about the mandatory minimum fine listed in the trafficking statute? Must that be imposed, or is the defendant “habitualized out” of all the sentencing-related provisions of the trafficking laws? Apparently, this issue comes up regularly in practice.
News Roundup
On Tuesday the Justice Department charged 50 people, including celebrities and business leaders, with participating in nationwide bribery and fraud schemes that allowed their children to be admitted into top universities despite lacking the necessary qualifications. As the New York Times reports, parents, college preparatory businesses, university officials, and coaches paid and accepted bribes in order to secure spots at various competitive universities. The schemes were fractured and complex – sometimes a test proctor was bribed to adjust a student’s standardized test score, other times a coach was bribed to falsely label a student as an athletic recruit. The common denominator in the sprawling schemes was the exchange of significant amounts of money. The Times story describes situations where parents paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in at least one case more than $1 million, in order to fraudulently secure a spot for their child at a desirable school. Keep reading for more news.