News Roundup

The New York Times and Right on Crime are each reporting that South Carolina and Louisiana appear poised to raise the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in those states from 16- to 17-years-old.  The change would mean that most 17-year-old offenders would participate in juvenile court rather than adult court, and is in line with a bipartisan national trend towards raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction.  The article from the Times notes that North Carolina is one of only two states where 16-year-old offenders are automatically treated as adults in the criminal justice system.  The Criminal Investigation & Adjudication Committee of the N.C. Commission on the Administration of Law & Justice is working on a raise the age proposal for North Carolina. Jessica Smith, Reporter to the Committee, presented a draft report on the issue to the Committee last Friday. Information about the Committee’s work is available here.  Keep reading for more news.  

Read more

Twenty-Five Year Review of Sentences to Life Without Parole

I have started to get questions about G.S. 15A-1380.5, a repealed statute that used to provide for judicial review of sentences to life without parole after 25 years of imprisonment. It’s too early for a court to be applying the law just yet—the first reviews shouldn’t happen until 2019—but we’re getting close, and people are talking about it. Today’s post describes the law.

Read more

blank

Blanket Objection by State to Fact-Findings Sufficient to Trigger De Novo Review in DWI Case

If you decide to read yesterday’s court of appeals opinion in State v. Miller, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May 17, 2016) do yourself a favor and skip to page 9.  Not having the benefit of this advice, I got lost on page 3. At first, I thought my printer had malfunctioned, since page 3 seemed to be saying the same thing as page 2. But there’s no problem with my printer. I can’t say the same for the procedural history in this case. Tortured is not a sufficiently negative adjective to describe its path. Fortunately, things pick up half way through the opinion and an important rule emerges:  The State may obtain a de novo hearing in superior court under G.S. 20-38.7(a) without setting forth the specific findings of fact to which it objects.

So that’s the rule. Unless the senior resident superior court judge says otherwise.  You’re going to have to read the rest of this post to make sense of that.

Read more

May an Officer Assume a False Identity Online in Order to “Friend” a Suspect?

Officers are allowed to misrepresent their identities in the course of their investigations: they may pose as drug buyers, or prostitutes, or members of an organized crime syndicate. Is the same thing true online? In other words, may an officer claim to be someone else in order to “friend” a suspect on social media and thereby gain access to whatever information the suspect has posted? The answer isn’t clear yet, but I would guess that courts ultimately will say yes.

Read more

Fourth Circuit: North Carolina Assaults Don’t Count as “Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence” for Purposes of Firearm Prohibition

It is a federal crime for a person who has been convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to possess a gun. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). A “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means a misdemeanor that “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon,” and that is committed by a person with one of several specified relationships to the victim. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). Late last year, the Fourth Circuit ruled that North Carolina misdemeanor assault convictions generally don’t satisfy that definition.

Read more

News Roundup

This week the Tenth Circuit ruled that a condition of supervised release that required a man convicted of distributing child pornography to complete a sex offender treatment program violated the Fifth Amendment.  The particular program at issue included a sexual history polygraph that required the man to answer questions about whether he had committed sexual crimes for which he was never charged.  The program also required him to “sign an agreement instructing the treatment provider to report any discovered sexual crimes to appropriate authorities.”  The court determined that the threat of being returned to prison for refusing to answer the polygraph questions, and thus violating supervised release, unconstitutionally compelled the man to be a witness against himself.  Keep reading for more news.

Read more

Egregious Aggravation Is Unconstitutional

In 2008 the General Assembly created the new crimes of rape and sexual offense with a child by an adult offender (G.S. 14-27.2A and -27.4A, respectively). S.L. 2008-117. They have special sentencing rules, described here, including the possibility of a higher maximum sentence if the judge finds “egregious aggravation” in the case. Discussing the law immediately after it passed in 2008, John Rubin wrote (here, on page 3) that placing the responsibility for determining egregious aggravation on the judge—not the jury—was “likely unconstitutional” under Blakely v. Washington. As my kids like to say, “Nailed it.” State v. Singletary, decided by the court of appeals last week (and mentioned briefly in last week’s News Roundup), ratified John’s view.

Read more

blank

Is it Legal to Keep a King Cobra as a Pet?

When news broke last week that 21-year-old Orange County resident Ali Iyoob had been bitten by his “pet” King Cobra, I had three thoughts.

  1. Who has a pet King Cobra?
  2. Where does one find a King Cobra to keep as a pet?
  3. It can’t be legal to have a King Cobra in your house. Can it?

 

The first question is obviously rhetorical. The answer to the second question is: the internet (of course). To answer the third question, I had to do a little research (on the internet, of course).

Read more

Court of Appeals Rules That Officer Had Reasonable Suspicion to Extend Traffic Stop

Jeff Welty in his post here yesterday discussed last week’s North Carolina Court of Appeals ruling in State v. Bedient. Today, I will discuss another ruling decided on the same day: State v. Castillo. Both cases are post-Rodriguez cases with different outcomes, with Bedient resulting in a ruling for the defendant and Castillo a ruling for the State.

Read more

Court of Appeals Finds Extension of Traffic Stop Unsupported by Reasonable Suspicion

Last week, the court of appeals decided State v. Bedient, a significant post-Rodriguez opinion on traffic stops. The court ruled that an officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend a stop by a few seconds to ask the driver for consent to search. This post summarizes and analyzes the case.

Read more