BLOG
Sentencing nerds rejoice. The North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission released its annual statistical report last week. The report is available here.
The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning in three cases involving the chemical testing of impaired drivers. The question before the court in each case is whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood. I’m eager to hear what the high court has to say about this issue and to learn whether it will impact North Carolina’s implied consent laws, which, like the laws in every other state, do provide for warrantless chemical testing, but which do not criminalize refusal to be tested. But we don’t have to wait for the Supreme Court’s opinion to see how our state’s implied consent laws are evolving in a post-Missouri v. McNeely world. The North Carolina Court of Appeals decided a significant case yesterday, ruling in State v. Romano, __ N.C. App. ___ (2016), that the warrantless withdrawal of blood from an unconscious impaired driving suspect violated the Fourth Amendment, notwithstanding a state statute that permits such actions.
In the recent case of State v. Hurd, the N.C. Court of Appeals upheld a claim by a prosecutor that a defendant’s peremptory strike of a prospective White juror was racially discriminatory, which is the second time that our appellate courts have upheld such a claim. This post briefly reviews the legal requirements for challenges under Batson, analyzes the court’s reasons for sustaining the prosecutor’s challenge in Hurd, and considers the lack of appellate decisions in North Carolina upholding defense challenges to prosecutors’ peremptory strikes of jurors of color.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina just decided State v. Snead, a case about the authentication of surveillance video. The court adopted a more relaxed approach to authentication than the court of appeals had taken. Because the authentication of video is an increasingly common issue, it is worth digging into the case.
Officer-involved shootings have been a frequent topic of national news in recent months. This week, there have been notable developments in two North Carolina cases. First, the News and Observer reports that a Harnett County grand jury declined to indict a sheriff’s deputy, Nicholas Kehagias, who shot and killed John Livingston in November. The report indicates that the decision comes “after months of unease in Harnett County” that included protests in front of the courthouse by Livingston’s friends and family. The jury reportedly was asked to consider second-degree murder charges. Though Kehagias will not face criminal charges, the News and Observer reports that Livingston’s family will pursue a civil case against him.
The other North Carolina case in the news involves a February incident in which Raleigh police officer D.C. Twiddy shot and killed Akiel Denkins. WRAL reports that Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman announced Wednesday that no criminal charges will be filed against Twiddy. The announcement follows an SBI investigation into the incident. The report says that community leaders “appeal[ed] for calm in the community” at a prayer vigil on Wednesday night, and notes that local officials praised the community for maintaining calm throughout the investigation. Keep reading for more news:
When can money owed as the result of criminal case be docketed as a civil judgment?
Servers who work for restaurants and bars that sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to an ABC permit are prohibited by G.S. 18B-305(a) from knowingly selling or giving alcoholic beverages to a person who is intoxicated. Violation of this provision is a Class 1 misdemeanor and may result in suspension of the establishment’s ABC permit. In cases where overserving results in injury, the restaurant or bar also may be liable for the damages that result. I’ve often wondered how servers know when to say when. After all, they are engaged in the business of selling alcoholic beverages—drinks that affect the brain functioning of everyone who consumes them. When does the statutory duty override their business interests?
Federal law and North Carolina law each prohibit in their own ways the possession of a firearm by a felon and, under federal law, certain domestic violence misdemeanors as well. A recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case ruled that a North Carolina felony conviction did not qualify to prove the federal offense of possession of a firearm by felon. The fact that this conviction likely would qualify for the North Carolina offense leads to this post that provides a general overview of the differences.
That’s my take-away from State v. Johnson, decided by the court of appeals last week.
As previously noted by the News Roundup, the FBI was able to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terror attacks without Apple’s assistance. Now that the FBI has this capability, local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys’ offices anticipate that they will ask the FBI to help access cellphones in investigations of criminal offenses, according to a report from the Charlotte Observer. The report indicates that about 20 percent of the phones examined by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s cybercrime unit are encrypted and the unit has been unable to access information on the devices. Keep reading for more news.