This week a Pennsylvania grand jury released a report of an investigation into six of the state’s eight Catholic dioceses which says that there is credible evidence that more than 300 “predator priests” sexually abused more than 1000 children over decades. The report further alleges that the church orchestrated a sophisticated cover-up of the sex crimes. The New York Times has an overview of the report here, and the full report, thorough and unflinching, is available here. The statute of limitations has expired for the majority of the crimes detailed in the report. Keep reading for more news.
Criminal Monetary Obligations Bench Card Available
The School of Government has published a new resource on Monetary Obligations in North Carolina Criminal Cases.
May the State Rely on an ACIS Printout to Prove Habitual Felon Status?
A person who has previously been convicted of three non-overlapping felonies who commits a new felony in North Carolina may be indicted for the new felony and may be separately indicted for obtaining habitual felon status. If the person is convicted of the new felony and of obtaining habitual felon status, the person is subject to more severe punishment for the new felony.
In State v. Waycaster, __ N.C. App. ___ (2018), the court of appeals considered whether the State could prove a prior conviction underlying the defendant’s habitual felon status by offering a printout from the state’s Automated Criminal/Infraction System (“ACIS”) into evidence.
G.S. 15A-928: One crime, two charges, one judgment?
Whenever a prior offense “raises an offense of lower grade to one of higher grade and thereby becomes an element” of the current offense (e.g., habitual larceny, habitual misdemeanor assault, habitual DWI, and second or subsequent charges for certain other offenses such as stalking, shoplifting, or carrying a concealed firearm), the state must plead and try the case in compliance with G.S. 15A-928. In short, this statute requires that: (i) an “improvised” name for the alleged offense must be used to avoid referring to any prior convictions; (ii) any prior offenses must be alleged in a separate indictment (or at least as a separate count within the indictment); (iii) the defendant must be separately arraigned on the alleged priors outside the presence of the jury; and (iv) if the defendant admits to the prior convictions, then that element has been proved and the state may not present evidence on it, nor will it be submitted to the jury.
Shea Denning has previously posted about G.S. 15A-928 and some of the key cases interpreting its requirements here and here, but last week I received an interesting procedural question on this topic.
When the state complies with these pleading rules, the result will be two separate indictments (or counts) pending in court, but of course there is really only one criminal offense being charged, and the defendant may only receive one punishment for it. What is the recommended procedure for how the charge(s?) and sentence(s?) should be reflected in the plea transcript or verdict form, and how should the court structure its judgment? This post offers a few thoughts and suggestions.
Does a Search Warrant for a Person Authorize a Strip Search?
Most search warrants are for homes or offices. Some are for vehicles. Less often, a search warrant is for a person. See generally G.S. 15A-241 (defining a search warrant as an order authorizing the search of “designated premises, vehicles, or persons”). When a search warrant authorizes the search of a person, how intensive may the search be? Specifically, may the executing officer conduct a strip search?
News Roundup
As USA Today reports, Sunday is the one-year anniversary of the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that began with torch-bearing marchers parading through the campus of the University of Virginia chanting racist slogans and ended with a participant killing a counter-demonstrator. In the aftermath, Charlottesville law enforcement agencies were criticized for their limited efforts at ensuring public safety. An anniversary rally reportedly is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C., and Charlottesville has preemptively declared a state of emergency. Keep reading for more news.
State v. Griffin and the Effectiveness of Satellite-Based Monitoring
The court of appeals issued a new decision on satellite-based monitoring (SBM) of sex offenders this week. It gives further guidance on what the State will need to show to establish that SBM is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment in light of Grady v. North Carolina.
New National/State Mottos License Plate
If you’ve driven around much in North Carolina, you’ve likely noted the proliferation of special license plates. Legislation authorizing the issuance of such plates is correspondingly ubiquitous. So it wasn’t particularly noteworthy when, earlier this year, the General Assembly added two new special registration plates to the list that now numbers in the hundreds, one for the Order of the Eastern Star Prince Hall Affiliated and another for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
What is noteworthy about 2018 license plate legislation is the General Assembly’s authorization of a new standard-issue license plate for private passenger vehicle: a National/State Mottos plate.
Defensive Force in the Home
We now have a number of appellate opinions interpreting the defensive force statutes enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2011. In State v. Kuhns, ___ N.C. App. ___ (July 3, 2018), we have our first opinion squarely addressing the provisions of G.S. 14-51.2, which deals with defensive force in a home, workplace, or motor vehicle. This post focuses on the home, where the conflict in Kuhns occurred, but some of the same principles apply to the workplace and motor vehicles.
Court of Appeals Rules Pattern Jury Instruction Inadequate in Felony Indecent Exposure Case
Last month, the court of appeals ruled that the pattern jury instruction for felony indecent exposure was inadequate given the facts of the case before it. The case is State v. Hoyle.