Recent blog posts - 234 of 399

[Author’s note: The North Carolina Supreme Court in Herndon v. Herndon, 368 N.C. 826 (2016), reversed the court of appeals’ decision discussed below. The state supreme court held that the trial court’s actions did not amount to a constitutional violation. The court concluded that the defendant did not invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and the trial court inquired into matters that were within the scope of the defendant’s testimony on direct examination.]

A recent court of appeals decision has stirred up a lot of discussion on our hall about the scope of the Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. The case is Herndon v. Herndon, __ N.C. App. __ (October 6, 2015), and it arose from a defendant’s appeal from the entry of a domestic violence protective order against her.  Before the defendant testified in the hearing to determine whether acts of domestic violence occurred, the presiding judge cautioned the defendant’s attorney:  “I’m not doing no Fifth Amendment.”  There’s really no question that the warning was, as one appellate judge put it, “less than artful,” but did it violate the defendant’s rights?

In the 2015 case State v. Hicks, __ N.C. App. __, 768 S.E.2d 373 (2015), after holding that the trial court committed plain error in its jury instructions, the N.C. Court of Appeals urged the General Assembly to clarify the relevant law:

North Carolina sentencing law allows multiple convictions to be consolidated for sentencing. Consolidation of felonies is governed by G.S. 15A-1340.15(b); G.S. 15A-1340.22(b) covers misdemeanors. The rule is the same for both types of crimes: when you consolidate offenses for judgment, the court imposes a single judgment, with a single sentence appropriate for the defendant’s most serious conviction. It’s a pretty extraordinary thing when you think about it. Notwithstanding all the fine-tuned, mandatory math that goes into the sentencing of a single offense under Structured Sentencing, the law allows virtually unfettered discretion to disregard all but the most serious offense for a defendant convicted of multiple crimes. Today’s post collects some of the rules for consolidation.

Here’s a question that comes up from time to time: May a search warrant issue for a residence in which an apparent suicide has taken place, in order to rule out the possibility of foul play? Generally, I don’t think so, for the reasons given below.

I can’t recall if I’ve mentioned it before on this blog, but I was on the debate team in high school and college, and I coach a high school debate team now. I’ve coached several students who went on to debate for Harvard, two of whom won collegiate national championships and one of whom won a world championship, a rare feat for an American debater. So I was pretty surprised to read this article from The Guardian, which reports that a team of New York prison inmates defeated a team of Harvard debaters a couple of weeks back. Kudos to the inmates. I know from experience that those Harvard kids are sharp.

With the General Assembly done for the year, it’s time to post an updated sex offender registration and monitoring flow chart. A major reorganization of the sex crimes in Chapter 14 necessitated more changes than usual.

This session, the General Assembly made some changes to the statute governing the fingerprinting of criminal defendants. Inside and outside the School of Government, people are divided about whether the statute now requires officers to arrest, rather than cite, individuals for misdemeanor marijuana possession offenses.

Author’s Note: Question 2 of this post and its answer have been amended to accurately reflect the state of the law before it was amended in the 2015 session.

Earlier this legislative session, the General Assembly enacted the North Carolina Drivers License Restoration Act, S.L. 2015-186, which amended the state’s driving while license revoked law and relieved certain defendants of the mandatory license revocations that historically have followed convictions for this offense. I blogged here about the particulars of the act, which recodified various violations of G.S. 20-28 and eliminated additional license revocations for certain types of DWLR convictions. Three questions about the import of the act immediately arose. Now that the technical corrections bill has become law, I have answers.

It’s the first Monday in October, which means it’s the first day of the Supreme Court’s 2015 Term. Read on to learn about the criminal law cases that the Court will consider.

While the General Assembly has closed up shop, Congress is going strong, and a bipartisan group of Senators has introduced the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, which would reform federal mandatory minimums in drug cases, expand the “safety valve,” and require a complete inventory of all federal criminal offenses. The last item especially intrigues me, because several efforts at listing all federal crimes have failed in the recent past. Doug Berman summarizes the legislation here, and a critical reaction to it is here.