Recent blog posts - 134 of 398

This is not the first (and likely will not be the last) blog post about research findings and strategies to reduce impaired driving.  A few months ago, I wrote about a veteran researcher’s recommendations to expand ignition interlock and conduct more high visibility enforcement. Last week, I wrote about the risks posed by impaired drivers, the prevalence of impairment by alcohol versus other impairing substances, and the percentage of impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes who have previously been convicted of impaired driving. This week’s post addresses research in two areas related to efforts to reduce impaired driving: (1) the impact of transportation network companies, like Uber and Lyft, on the incidence of impaired driving; and (2) British Columbia’s success in reducing impaired driving through a program imposing administrative, rather than criminal, sanctions.

In United States v. Smith, 939 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2019), the Fourth Circuit held that a defendant who received a conditional discharge for a prior felony was not “convicted” of that crime within the meaning of the federal felon-in-possession statute. He was therefore not a felon under that law, and thus not barred from possessing a firearm under it. The appellate court reversed his conviction. The case gives us an opportunity to review what we know (and don’t know) about the subsequent effect of conditional discharges and PJCs.

In this blog post from 2012, Professor Jessica Smith summarized Rules of Evidence 101 and 1101, which together dictate that the rules of evidence apply to “all actions and proceedings in the courts of this State,” except for proceedings that are specifically excluded by the rules or another statute. Pursuant to these two rules and the case law interpreting them, proceedings at which the rules of evidence (except for rules of privilege) do not apply include: applications for warrants; grand jury proceedings; first appearances; pretrial release hearings; probable cause hearings; hearings on motions to suppress; witness voir dire; sentencing hearings; probation revocation hearings; and more.

That’s quite a list. If the rules of evidence do not apply to any of these proceedings, are there any limits at all on the evidence that may be offered? Could an unsworn and mentally incompetent witness with no personal knowledge offer irrelevant and prejudicial triple-hearsay testimony about a prior conviction more than 10 years old, offered solely for the purpose of showing the defendant’s bad character and the likelihood that he acted in conformity therewith?

Surely not. But if there are no rules of evidence, why not? The short answer to nearly any question about the admissibility of evidence under Rule 1101(b) is “it’s in the judge’s discretion,” but what guides that discretion, and what are its limits?

This post summarizes criminal and related decisions published by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December, 2019. Decisions of interest to state practitioners will be posted on a monthly basis. Previous Fourth Circuit case summaries are available here.

Among the most significant North Carolina criminal news stories last year was the tragic shooting on the campus of UNC Charlotte that killed two students, Reed Parlier and Riley Howell, and injured four others.  This week, the Charlotte Observer reports the proposal of a $1 million permanent memorial and reflection space to commemorate and remember the victims of the attack. Keep reading for more information about the memorial and other news.

Happy New Year, everyone.

A few months ago, I blogged about the continuing phenomenon of impaired driving, the fatalities resulting from crashes involving impaired drivers, and recommendations from experts about how to reduce the incidence of impaired driving. Some of the feedback I received indicated that talk of solutions ought to be preceded by common agreement on the nature of the problem.

This post summarizes published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided yesterday, Jan. 7, 2020.

I want to kick off 2020 by welcoming Tim Heinle to the School of Government. It is his first week on the job as our new Civil Defender Educator. Here he is in his new office at the School. You can reach him at 919.962.9594 or heinle@sog.unc.edu. Tim will assist defenders in the diverse and challenging practice areas that make up civil indigent defense in North Carolina, including abuse, neglect, and dependency cases, guardianship, and child support contempt proceedings.

As the Asheville Citizen-Times reports, earlier this month the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians was the victim of a damaging cyberattack that caused widespread damage to tribal networks and affected critical systems including 911 dispatch.  Almost two weeks out from the December 7 attack, the tribe still is working to repair their network and bring systems back online.  A former IT employee who was suspended two days before the attack, Benjamin Cody Long, has been arrested in connection with the incident.  A report from the Cherokee One Feather covering Long’s detention hearing in Cherokee Tribal Court has detailed information about the attack and includes a quote from the judge describing the damage as “immense and unprecedented.”

This is the last blog post of the year.  Thanks to all of our readers for engaging with the blog this year, we hope that everyone has a safe and happy holiday season.  Keep reading for more news.

Under a law that existed from late 1994 to late 1998, North Carolina defendants sentenced to life without parole for offenses committed during that window are entitled to a judicial review after 25 years of imprisonment. I wrote about it here a few years ago, noting that the window for reviews would open in late 2019. Here we are.