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?
Is “Justification” a Defense to Possession of a Firearm by a Person with a Felony Conviction?
North Carolina law prohibits a person who has been convicted of a felony from possessing a firearm. The prohibition, set forth in G.S. 14-415.1, contains narrow exceptions, such as for antique firearms. The question has arisen in several cases whether a person with a prior felony conviction may possess a firearm if necessary to defend himself or others—in other words, whether the person may rely on a justification defense.
Update on Jury Trial Waivers
In 2014, North Carolina’s voters approved an amendment to the state constitution. The amendment enabled a criminal defendant charged with a crime in superior court to waive his or her right to a jury trial, and instead have his or her guilt or innocence determined by a judge. I wrote a report about the amendment before it was adopted; I wrote about some of the procedural questions raised by the amendment after it passed; and I wrote about 2015 legislation that changed or clarified the waiver procedures. Now we have an appellate case that addresses two issues pertinent to jury trial waivers, so I thought I’d write about that.
News Roundup
The Baltimore Sun reports that prosecutors have dropped all remaining charges against police officers in cases related to the 2015 arrest and death of Freddie Gray. The decision to end the prosecutions was motivated by the fact that no officer who had already faced trial had been convicted. Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby reportedly decided that it was unlikely that convictions could be secured in the remaining cases, but defended the decision to bring charges given that the medical examiner’s office classified Gray’s death as a homicide. Though the state criminal cases are resolved, administrative investigations of the officers are ongoing and the Justice Department is expected to release the results of a civil-rights investigation of the Police Department soon. Keep reading for more news.