A UNC School of Government Blog
Rule 803 sets out twenty-three hearsay exceptions that apply regardless of the declarant’s availability. Two that arise with some frequency in criminal cases are present sense impressions and excited utterances. Here’s what you need to know about those exceptions. Present Sense Impression. Rule 803(1) provides an exception for “[a] statement describing or explaining an event … Read more
The North Carolina Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section had its annual awards dinner last night. As always, it was an inspiration. Senior Deputy Attorney General Jim Coman received the Peter Gilchrist award as an outstanding career prosecutor, and Guilford County Public Defender Fred Lind received the Wade Smith Award as an outstanding career defense attorney. … Read more
Case study: the Neenah stop. Recently in Neenah, WI, a woman called the police to report a man with a gun strapped to his back walking down the street. The call was placed to the non-emergency police number and the caller didn’t report that the man was doing anything threatening, but she did suggest that … Read more
In general, a court only has jurisdiction to act on a probation case until the period of probation expires. There is a limited exception to that rule in G.S. 15A-1344(f). Under that law, the court may act on the case after it expires if the State filed a violation report with the clerk before expiration. … Read more
Evidence Rule 801(d) sets out a hearsay exception for “Admissions by a Party-Opponent.” If you’re not clear on that rule, read on. The rule says that a statement is admissible under this exception if it is “offered against a party” and is (A) his or her own statement, in an individual or representative capacity; (B) … Read more
The biggest news of the week may be that Frank Perry, the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety, has authorized a one-drug protocol for lethal injection, replacing the three-drug “cocktail” system previously in effect. WRAL has the AP story here. The story states that the new protocol will “slightly loosen the legal knot that’s … Read more
The first two posts in this series (here and here) discussed opinions from state supreme courts in Arizona and Minnesota considering, post-McNeely v. Missouri, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013), whether a suspect’s submission to implied consent testing was voluntary consent within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This post discusses why that sort of analysis is … Read more
Yesterday’s post discussed challenges to implied consent laws raised by defendants following the Supreme Court’s decision last spring in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013). The post summarized the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding that, independent of the state’s implied consent law, the Fourth Amendment requires an arrestee’s consent to be voluntary to justify a … Read more
The United States Supreme Court held last term in Missouri v. McNeeIy, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), that the natural dissipation of alcohol in a person’s bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every impaired driving case sufficient to excuse the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. McNeely’s holding comported with the analysis that the North Carolina … Read more
I field a lot of calls from prosecutors, defenders, and judges about evidence issues. Character evidence is one area that accounts for a lot of those calls. And no wonder. The rules are complicated and almost impossible to keep straight. The basic rule is that character evidence can’t be admitted to show propensity. Thus, evidence … Read more