Is fentanyl an opiate? That’s the question the prosecutor asked a witness in State v Gibbs. The trial court overruled the defendant’s objection, and the witness was permitted to testify that fentanyl was both an opioid and an opiate. In an unpublished opinion (“Gibbs I”), the Court of Appeals ruled this was error, reversing a conviction for trafficking by possession. Our Supreme Court then reversed the Court of Appeals. In a concise, per curiam opinion, our Supreme Court declared that whether fentanyl is an opiate is a question of law, and it remanded for reconsideration. In a subsequent unpublished opinion (“Gibbs II”), the Court of Appeals determined that fentanyl is an opiate as a matter of law. Reasoning that there was no need for an expert witness to testify on the issue, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was no error in the defendant’s conviction for trafficking. Of course, whether such testimony is necessary does not resolve whether this particular evidence was admissible. Gibbs is an evidence case, but the rule it illustrates is elusive. This post examines Gibbs to ascertain whether the prosecutor asked a permissible question.
New Bulletin on Pretrial Release in Criminal Domestic Violence Cases
I recently finished a new Administration of Justice Bulletin on Pretrial Release in Criminal Domestic Violence Cases. It is available here as a free download. Through a series of questions and answers, the bulletin discusses pretrial release generally; examines the special rules of pretrial release for domestic violence cases; and explores the mechanics of the 48-hour rule, the impact of violations of these special pretrial release rules, and questions on limitations of authority.
News Roundup
Police in Boone may have narrowly averted a mass shooting this week. According to WRAL, Peter Gabaree was asked to leave a popular bar in the college town. He went to his vehicle in the parking lot, where two patrons noticed that he was holding a handgun. They told the bar’s security staff, who called police. Officers responded and ultimately charged Gabaree with going armed to the terror of the public. In his vehicle, they found “a tactical vest, a shotgun, the pistol and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.” The police chief described Gabaree as “preparing weapons.” Keep reading for more news.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (Nov. 7, 2023)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on November 7, 2023. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
A Closer Look at the New Misdemeanor DV Crime and the 48-Hour Rule
I previously blogged about the new misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, which will take effect on December 1, 2023. For the new offense, codified as G.S. 14-32.5, a person is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor if that person uses or attempts to use physical force, or threatens the use of a deadly weapon, against another person. The person who commits the offense must have a covered relationship with the victim, as specified by the statute.
While both the new misdemeanor domestic violence statute (G.S. 14-32.5) and the existing domestic violence pretrial release statute (G.S. 15A-534.1) require both a covered offense and a qualifying relationship, the requirements do not mirror one another. This post explores the interplay between the relationships listed under G.S. 14-32.5 and G.S. 15A-534.1.
News Roundup
A group in Massachusetts is working to clear the names of people accused of witchcraft, according to this report from the AP. The Massachusetts Witch-Hunt Justice Project includes historians and distant relatives of the hundreds of people who were charged, tried for, or convicted of witchery in the state during the 17th century. A similar effort in Connecticut resulted in a legislative resolution of innocence on behalf of the accused and an apology. According to this story, the last witchcraft trial in North America took place in Virigina in 1706. Read on for more criminal law news.
Probation Violations and the Pretrial Integrity Act
The Pretrial Integrity Act has been in effect for one month now and has generated several questions about the implications of the new provisions. Some of the most frequently asked questions stem from probation violations, particularly how arrests for probation violations are treated under the new law. This post briefly addresses the two most common questions in this context.
Can I Take a Look at Your Phone?
Inquisitive police officers regularly ask suspects questions like “Can I take a look at your phone?” or “Can I see your phone?” These on-the-street requests may give rise to legal questions in court. For example, if the suspect hands over the phone in response, does that provide consent for the officer to search the phone? And if so, what is the scope of the search that the officer may conduct? This post explores those issues.
General Assembly Appoints Seven New Special Superior Court Judges
A few weeks ago I wrote about provisions of the 2023 Appropriations Act that affect the judiciary. Among those changes was the creation of ten new special superior court judgeships to be filled by legislative appointment. The General Assembly made seven of those appointments last week. See S.L. 2023-148 (S 761). The list of special superior court judges who are appointed to eight-year terms effective January 1, 2024, follows.
State v. McKoy and Opening the Door
Suppose the defendant is on trial for murder. He argues he shot the victim in self-defense.
The State elicits testimony from the victim’s father that the victim, who lived at home with his parents, was “always a happy guy.” The father states that he does not allow guns in his home and that, to his knowledge, the victim did not have a gun with him on the day he was shot or have a gun at any other time.
Counsel for the defendant then asks the father: After your son died, did you see pictures on his cell phone of him with his friends holding guns?
The State objects. The defendant argues that, while the evidence would otherwise be inadmissible, the State opened the door to its admission.
How should the trial court rule?