North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

Last week, I blogged about the application of the private search doctrine in child pornography cases. I noted that one recent case began when a computer repair technician contacted police to report child pornography on a computer he was repairing. A story about the case stated that “North Carolina law requires computer technicians to report any such images found during the course of their work to local law enforcement or the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.” I didn’t know that, so I did some research.

Is the death penalty dying? It’s a fair question given that the Republican-controlled Nebraska legislature just abolished the punishment over the governor’s veto (the New York Times has the story here), and that yesterday’s ABC News poll reveals a “new low” in national support for the death penalty (albeit only over a time horizon of 15 years). It’s also the question Time magazine asked in this recent feature story. Here’s a related question that I’ll pose to readers: Which will come to North Carolina first, marijuana legalization or the repeal of the death penalty?

Many child pornography cases begin when someone with access to the defendant’s computer looks through it, finds child pornography, and contacts law enforcement. For example, the recent Raleigh case in which a “Santa for hire” was charged with possessing child pornography began when a computer repair technician contacted police. In this type of case, does the private party’s search of the defendant’s computer destroy the defendant’s privacy interest such that an officer may then search the computer without a search warrant? A recent federal case explores the issue.

The United States Supreme Court held in Rodriguez v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (discussed here), that a law enforcement officer may not extend a traffic stop to investigate matters unrelated to the basis for the stop—not even for a matter of minutes—unless the additional delay is supported by reasonable suspicion. The North Carolina Court of Appeals applied that principle this week in State v. Leak, ___ N.C. App. ___ (2015), reversing the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress and vacating the defendant’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Post-release supervision used to be relatively rare. Before 2011, only Class B1–E felons received PRS, and they accounted for only about 15 percent of all felons. Now that Class F–I felons also get PRS, the number of people under supervision is surging. Some of them get into trouble. This post looks at some of the increasingly common questions that come up when a post-release supervisee is charged with and eventually convicted of a new crime.

The state supreme court recently reversed a death sentence and a first-degree murder conviction because the State presented “an excessive amount” of otherwise admissible Rule 404(b) evidence. How much is too much?

It was a big news week, but I’ll start with the General Assembly. First off, it passed a law, S.L. 2015-31, that requires motor vehicles to have at least one “stop lamp,” or brake light, on each side of the rear of the vehicle. It thus effectively overruled State v. Heien, 214 N.C. App. 515 (2011), which held that G.S. 20-129(g) only requires one stop lamp.

If a defendant is arrested on Monday, detained all week, and sentenced on Friday, how many days of jail credit does he get?

Gray is in.  And DMV knows it.   

Many juvenile cases are resolved through admissions (known as guilty pleas in criminal court), often with the prosecutor’s agreement to reduce the charge. Sometimes, the reduced charge is a lesser-included offense of the original offense charged in the petition, such as changing common law robbery to misdemeanor larceny. See State v. White, 142 N.C. App. 201, 204 (2001). But, often, a reduced charge is not a lesser-included offense, like changing sexual battery to simple assault. See State v. Corbett, 196 N.C. App. 508, 511 (2009). The question then becomes: How can the State proceed on a different offense than the one charged in the petition? Can the prosecutor prepare a misdemeanor statement of charges as in criminal court? Or, is a new petition required? Here are the answers.