Much has been written—and much of it by the Supreme Court—on the proper way to find aggravating factors for sentencing. After Apprendi v. New Jersey, Blakely v. Washington, and countless cases at the state level, it is of course clear that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to have aggravating factors proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Once sentencing factors are properly found, however, responsibility shifts back to the judge to decide what to do about them. The rules for weighing factors are as loosey-goosey as the rules for finding them are rigid.
Book Review: Just Mercy
A few years ago, I attend the Judicial Conference of the Fourth Circuit, where I heard Bryan Stevenson speak. The address was captivating. Stevenson spoke of representing the wrongly accused and the wrongly convicted. He told of advocating for juveniles who were incarcerated with adults and who were sexually abused as a result. He urged the audience to get a little closer to the criminal justice system, and to look a little more carefully at it. Now Stevenson has written a book, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. Among many other awards, it was named a best book of the year by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Time magazine. I thought it was good, but not great.
News Roundup
The SOG is closed for a holiday tomorrow, so the News Roundup is coming to you a day early. This week’s top news story is the bombing of the airport and a metro station in Brussels. USA Today has full coverage of the attack here. Three explosions were reported and at least 34 people were confirmed dead in the attack at the time of writing. According to USA Today, the Islamic State has taken credit for the attack and Belgium’s federal prosecutor confirmed that the bombings were the work of terrorists. WRAL has a story about a local man who was in Brussels Airport and survived the bombing. Keep reading for more news.
State v. Miller Confirms that the DWI Motions Statutes are a Hot Mess
No, Justice Ervin didn’t use the words hot mess. But anyone who slogs their way through the tortured procedural swamp that led to State v. Miller, __ N.C. __ (March 18, 2016), is bound to agree that the procedures adopted in 2006 for appeals in DWI cases have created a nearly impenetrable bog for the parties involved. I’m going to do my best here to succinctly explain what happened in Miller. Then I’ll share an idea for freeing litigants and judges from the procedural muck in which they are currently mired.
North Carolina Supreme Court Affirms Post-Rodriguez Court of Appeals Ruling in State v. Warren
Last April, 2015, the United States Supreme Court in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), significantly limited the scope of a traffic stop. The Court ruled that an officer may not extend a completed traffic stop for any period of time, no matter how brief, to conduct a dog sniff—absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (or consent). The Court rejected the government’s argument that an officer may incrementally prolong a traffic stop, which some lower courts, including North Carolina’s, had justified as a de minimis intrusion. The Court reasoned that a dog alert is not a permissible part of a traffic stop because it detects evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, which is not part of an officer’s traffic mission. The Court, however, clearly indicated that if a dog sniff or other non-traffic-related activity does not add any time to the stop (in this case, it added 7–8 minutes), then the dog sniff or other activity is valid under the Fourth Amendment, as it previously had ruled in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
Court of Appeals Rules that Ignorance of the (Pseudoephedrine) Law Is an Excuse
Last week, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a defendant’s conviction under G.S. 90-95(d1)(1)(c), which makes it unlawful to “[p]ossess a pseudoephedrine product if [a] person has a prior conviction for the possession or manufacture of methamphetamine.” The court ruled that the defendant’s “due process rights under the United States Constitution were violated by his conviction of a strict liability offense criminalizing otherwise innocuous and lawful behavior without providing him notice that a previously lawful act had been transformed into a felony for the subset of convicted felons to which he belonged.” In other words, the defendant’s apparent ignorance of the law excused his violation of it.
News Roundup
President Obama announced that he has selected Merrick B. Garland as his nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The New York Times has an overview article about the nomination that states that it “sets in motion a standoff that is likely to play out for many months, perhaps without resolution.” Garland is currently serving as the chief judge of the District of Columbia Circuit, and reportedly is broadly respected for his work. A range of news outlets have published pieces on Garland’s background. The Obama administration’s is here; The Chicago Tribune’s is here; Newsweek’s is here; The Atlantic’s is here. The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog has a collection of reactions to the nomination from people in the legal field here. Hit the break for more news.
Alleging a “Commit No Criminal Offense” Probation Violation
Can a probationer be revoked for a violation of the “commit no criminal offense” probation condition if the violation report alleges only that the person has been charged with a crime?
What’s the Proper Charge When the Violation of a Traffic Law Causes Someone’s Death?
In 2014, 1,284 people were killed in traffic accidents in North Carolina. Most of those people were occupants in a passenger car, though motor vehicle crashes also claimed the lives of 172 pedestrians, 190 motorcyclists and 19 bicyclists. Seventy percent of the fatalities resulted from crashes that did not involve an alcohol-impaired driver. While it is fairly easy to determine the appropriate criminal charge when a person drives while impaired and proximately causes the death of another, it is less obvious what the appropriate charge is when a driver’s violation of another type of traffic statute proximately causes someone else’s death.
What to Expect After a Traffic Stop: The Movie
As mentioned in a recent News Roundup, the Raleigh Police Department (RPD) produced a short video entitled “Traffic Stops: What to Expect as a Motorist,” instructing drivers who have been pulled over by law enforcement on how they should behave. It appears that the RPD had the laudable goal of educating the public to ensure the safety of both officers and motorists. Captain Bruce, the officer who narrates the video, states that “by following a few basic steps, the experience can progress without misunderstanding or conflict.” The video is garnering attention: As of today, it has received 8,446 views on YouTube, with “likes” outweighing “dislikes” 21 to 15. This blog offers legal commentary on a few of the points made in the video, using a scale of green light for what appear to be sound instructions, yellow light for instructions that may raise questions, and red light for an instruction that may prove misleading to citizens.