In national news, prosecutors filed a superseding indictment in the federal criminal case against Donald Trump after the Supreme Court granted former presidents substantial immunity. Court papers say the new indictment “reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions.” Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. But that wasn’t the end of the story – on the election subversion charges, the Court sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to “carefully analyze” whether the allegations involve “official conduct” for which the former president would be immune from prosecution. It appears after weeks of consulting with other officials in the Justice Department, special counsel Jack Smith sees a way to proceed in the case, consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Read on for more criminal law news.
Case Summaries: N.C. Supreme Court (August 23, 2024)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the Supreme Court of North Carolina released on August 23, 2024. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
Changes Coming to Delinquency Law
Session Law 2024-17 contains several changes to delinquency law and new penalties for soliciting a minor to commit an offense. I covered the changes related to juvenile jurisdiction and the transfer process in last month’s blog. This blog explains the remaining changes. They include modifications to the timelines for secure custody hearings and for a victim or a complainant to request prosecutor review of a decision not to file a petition, school notification of the filing of a felony delinquency petition, restitution as a dispositional alternative, and the crime of soliciting a minor to commit an offense. These changes will take effect beginning with offenses committed on or after December 1, 2024.
Did State v. Singleton Bring a Sea Change in the Law of Indictments?
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Singleton, No. 318PA22, __ N.C. __ (2024), brings about a transformation of North Carolina indictment law. The case “ends [a] centuries old saga” in deciding that the “common law jurisdictional indictment rule” is “no longer the law in this State.” Slip. op. 3, 40. My colleague, Joe Hyde, delved into the analysis and history set forth in the 84-page opinion here. This post will elaborate on the potential consequences for practitioners.
News Roundup
Verizon Wireless is facing a lawsuit after a man claiming to be a detective with the Cary Police Department was arrested for stalking. Last year, Robert Glauner, who is a resident of New Mexico, sent Verizon Wireless a fake search warrant demanding phone records from a Cary woman. He falsely claimed that the woman was a homicide suspect, but it was later revealed that she was someone he was stalking after connecting with her online.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (Aug. 20, 2024)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on August 20, 2024. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
Court of Appeals Holds Sight or Odor of Cannabis = Probable Cause
Author’s Note: The Court of Appeals withdrew the decision on which this post is based on August 30, 2024.
The Court of Appeals recently settled an issue that has been unresolved in the state for several years: In light of legal hemp, does the sight or odor of cannabis still provide probable cause to justify a search or arrest? Hemp and marijuana—both varieties of the cannabis plant—are indistinguishable by sight or smell. Since State v. Parker, 277 N.C. App. 531 (2021), the Court of Appeals has wrestled with the issue. Parker and subsequent cases repeatedly declined to decide the question, holding instead that officers had probable cause under the facts of each case based on the officer’s observation of suspected marijuana “plus” additional incriminating circumstances. Some trial courts had sometimes granted motions to suppress when the probable cause was based solely or primarily on the odor or sight of cannabis. See, e.g., State v. Springs, 292 N.C. App. 207 (2024) (reversing the trial court’s grant of motion to suppress). It seems we finally have an answer. According to In Re: J.B.P., No. COA23-269, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Aug. 6, 2024), the sight or smell of cannabis, standing alone, provides an officer with probable cause to believe marijuana may be found, just as it did before the advent of legal hemp. This post discusses the implications of the J.B.P. case and offers thoughts on defending marijuana prosecutions in its wake. Read on for the details.
News Roundup
Local news became national news this week when a man serving life imprisonment for the murder of a one-year-old child on Christmas escaped from custody. According to the AP, 30-year-old Ramone Alston was able to free himself from leg restraints and run into the woods as his van arrived at a UNC hospital in Hillsborough, NC. Mr. Alston was scheduled for a medical appointment. After the state offered a $25,000 reward for tips leading to his apprehension, and the U.S. Marshals added an additional $10,000 incentive, authorities received a torrent of phone calls. Orange County Sheriff Charles Blackwood stated he has known Mr. Alston since Mr. Alston’s birth. After a three-day search for Mr. Alston involving 19 law enforcement agencies, Mr. Alston was apprehended at a Comfort Inn in Kannapolis.
Read on for more criminal law news.
Smith v. Arizona and Retroactivity
My colleagues have covered the retroactivity rules many times before on the blog but the analysis for determining the retroactivity of new federal rules has changed in the last few years. Considering that and the recent Confrontation Clause rule for substitute analyst testimony announced in Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. ___; 144 S.Ct. 1785 (2024) (summarized here), an update is in order. Today’s post reviews the federal retroactivity analysis and examines how it may be applied to Smith. Read on for the details.