This blog post has good news, bad news, and good news about Alyson Grine, who has served as the School’s defender educator for ten years. During that time, Alyson and I worked closely together on indigent defense education, and I wanted to write this farewell on the School’s behalf. The good news is that she is excited to start her new position this fall as an assistant professor at North Carolina Central University School of Law, and we are excited for her. You can reach her at agrine@nccu.edu. The bad news is that she will be leaving the School, and to put it mildly we are sorry to see her go. Then again, the good news is that she leaves a remarkable record of accomplishments in indigent defense education, on which we can continue to build. What has she done in the past ten years? The more apt question is what hasn’t she done.
A Juvenile Justice Reform Proposal for North Carolina
As many of you know (mainly because you’ve tried to contact me and I haven’t been available!) Chief Justice Mark Martin appointed me to serve as Reporter for the Criminal Committee of the North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice (NCCALJ). This month the NCCALJ is holding public hearings on its reform proposals. One draft proposal, from the Criminal Committee, calls for North Carolina to join the majority of states in the nation and raise the juvenile age to 18. This post provides an update on the Committee’s work on that issue and hopefully will facilitate your comments on the draft proposal.
News Roundup
A shooting that occurred early Sunday morning in Raleigh has made its way into the national news this week. As CNN reports, Chad Copley has been charged with fatally shooting Kouren-Rodney Bernard Thomas after calling 911 to report that “a bunch of hoodlums” were in front of his house. Copley then told the dispatcher that he was on neighborhood watch, was “locked and loaded,” and was “going to secure [his] neighborhood.” Shortly thereafter, a different person called 911 to report a shooting. The News & Observer reports that investigators allege that Copley fired a shotgun from inside his garage and hit Bernard who was outside. The case is drawing comparisons to the incident where Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman. Keep reading for more news.
Consecutive Sentences for Criminal Contempt
One of the first posts I wrote on this blog was about the punishment for criminal contempt. The post included a discussion about whether sentences for contempt could be run consecutively—something our appellate courts hadn’t yet ruled on at the time. In State v. Burrow, decided last week, the court of appeals approved a trial court’s orders sentencing a defendant to six consecutive 30-day terms of imprisonment for contempt.
Is it a Crime to Wear a Thong on the Beach in North Carolina?
(Author’s note: This post has been amended since its initial publication.)
My kids spend lots of time during the summer at our local YMCA, where this day of the week is known as Wacky Wednesday. On Humpday, many of us at the School of Government think of a retired colleague who greeted everyone in the building with a “Happy Wonderful Wednesday!” Whether you deem today’s blog post wacky or wonderful–or just plain weird—it addresses a question that continues to cross the minds of many in the state and which was posed to me a few weeks ago. Fortunately, there is a clear answer. (Spoiler alert: If you’ve visited the beach lately, you likely know what it is.)
No Probable Cause to Search Vehicle Occupant Based Solely on Generalized Odor of Marijuana Emanating From Vehicle
The existence of probable cause to search a vehicle and probable cause to search a vehicle occupant based on an odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle present separate legal issues. The North Carolina Court of Appeals on August 2, 2016, ruled in State v. Pigford that although an officer had probable cause to search a vehicle, he did not have probable cause to search a vehicle occupant based on the marijuana odor. However, another theory mentioned by the court may ultimately support the admission of the illegally-seized evidence at the retrial of the case.
Podcast Update: Episode 3 Now Available
The moment you have been anticipating has finally arrived! No, not the start of the Olympics, but the release of Episode 3 of our podcast, Beyond the Bench. It is now available on our podcast website and in the Apple and Android podcast stores. The episode features an interview with Superior Court Judge Carl Fox. … Read more
News Roundup
As the News & Observer reports, late last week the Fourth Circuit struck down significant portions of the Voter Information and Verification Act, legislation passed in 2013 that, among other things, required photo ID at polls and shortened the early voting period. The Fourth Circuit concluded that certain provisions of the legislation were enacted with racially discriminatory intent, and enjoined the implementation of those provisions. The News & Observer article says that politicians who support the Act, claiming that it is designed to prevent voter fraud, intend to appeal the decision and consider it to be politically-motivated. Election officials reportedly are “scrambling to comply” with the ruling. Keep reading for more news.
New Case on “Commit No Criminal Offense” Probation Violations Involving a Pending Charge
State v. Hancock, decided this week by the court of appeals, sheds new light on violations of the commit no criminal offense probation condition involving a pending charge.
Does State v. Ashworth Place Factors Over Substance?
The court of appeals reversed a defendant’s DWI conviction yesterday in State v. Ashworth, __ N.C. App. __ (August 2, 2016), on the basis that the trial court plainly erred in holding that the driver’s license checkpoint at which the defendant was stopped was appropriately tailored and advanced the public interest. Unlike some checkpoint cases in which you can see the trouble coming in the recitation of facts, Ashworth is a pretty routine checkpoint case. Two officers with the State Highway Patrol set up the checkpoint to look for driver’s license and other traffic violations. The highway patrol had a checkpoint policy that the officers followed. A supervisor approved the checkpoint. The defendant admitted that he had been drinking almost immediately after he stopped at the checkpoint. So where did the trial court go wrong?