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.
Character is Destiny: Improper Argument in State v. Anderson
Evidence of prior bad acts is admissible unless the only reason for introducing the evidence is to show the defendant’s propensity for committing the crime. In a trial involving a defendant’s sexual assault of children, the prosecutor told the jury, “[t]he best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.” Is that an inaccurate statement of law? The Court of Appeals recently held that it was. This post considers the rule – that incorrect statements of law in closing argument are improper – and its application in this case, State v. Anderson, No. COA23-821 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug 6, 2024).
Grants Pass: Local Government Authority and the Constitutionality of Laws Against Camping or Sleeping in Public
According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, well over half a million people are unhoused on any given night in America. Given the magnitude of the crisis, local governments face immense challenges in addressing the underlying causes of homelessness while managing public health and safety concerns. Some local governments, including many in North Carolina, have adopted anti-camping and/or anti-sleeping ordinances as part of their response.
The Supreme Court of the United States recently considered whether the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause barred an Oregon city’s adoption of ordinances restricting camping on public property in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U. S. ____ (2024). One of us previewed the case and commented on the oral arguments a few months ago. On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the city’s public camping laws, concluding that their enforcement does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. This blog post analyzes the Court’s decision and offers guidance to local governments regarding anti-sleeping and anti-camping ordinances.
[Editor’s note: This post is cross posted on Coates’ Canons, the School of Government’s local government law blog.]
News Roundup
Last week, the Department of Defense announced that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and two co-defendants had reached plea deals. Generally, the defendants would plead guilty to various charges before the military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay and accept life in prison, and in exchange would be spared the death penalty. Then the Department of Defense announced that the deals are off. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a memo revoking the deals and reserving to himself the authority to enter into plea agreements. Some families of 9/11 victims have cheered Austin’s decision while others support the deals. The defendants assert that a deal’s a deal and that Austin can’t nix them. Litigation is sure to ensue, further extending cases that have lasted more than two decades already. Keep reading for more news.