blank

DWI Parole: How Does It Really Work?

A few months ago, I taught a session on DWI sentencing to a group of judges.  As part of that session, I reviewed the rules for determining the parole-eligibility of a defendant convicted of impaired driving under G.S. 20-138.1 and sentenced to an active term of imprisonment under G.S. 20-179. The upshot of those rules, … Read more

Supreme Court Update

Today, I wanted to note two timely and interesting items concerning the United States Supreme Court. First, the Court just granted certiorari in Chaidez v. United States, a case that presents the issue of whether Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively. Padilla, of course, is the case that requires criminal defense attorneys, in some circumstances, to … Read more

blank

Child Victims and the Medical Diagnosis and Treatment Hearsay Exception

Child victim cases often present an array of challenging evidence issues. In a paper here I addressed many of those issues. One common question that folks contact me about is the admissibility of a child’s hearsay statements under Evidence Rule 803(4). This rule creates a hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis … Read more

News Roundup

This has been a busy but inspiring week for me, as we have had over 40 new prosecutors here at the School of Government for training. It is always a treat for me to work with aspiring public servants, and this group has impressed me as particularly serious and committed. But the world has not … Read more

blank

Men Behaving Very Badly

As part of its ongoing coverage of the John Edwards trial, The News and Observer reported today that Edwards’ lawyer cross-examined former Edwards aide Andrew Young by reading from pages of Young’s memoir “The Politician.”  I’m guessing that Young’s recounting of his arrest for impaired driving in Chapter 8 of the book, fittingly titled “Men … Read more

Advanced (Un)Supervised Release

In this earlier post I wrote about Advanced Supervised Release (ASR), a new program created by the Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA) that allows certain defendants to be released from prison before serving their minimum sentence. The law is set out in G.S. 15A-1340.18. To sum it up, defendants who fall in certain grid cells who … Read more

First Ruling Under the Racial Justice Act

Last Friday, Cumberland County Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Greg Weeks issued the first merits ruling on a claim under the Racial Justice Act (“RJA”), G.S. 15A-2010 et seq. Judge Weeks’ order, which vacates the death sentence previously imposed on Marcus Robinson, is here. It’s 168 pages long, so I suspect most people haven’t read … Read more

blank

Is Kenton Retroactive?

In a post here, Jeff wrote about the N.C. Court of Appeals decision in Kenton v. Kenton, holding that a consent domestic violence protective order (DVPO) lacking any finding that the defendant committed an act of domestic violence was void ab initio. As it turns out, a number of district court judges have been entering … Read more

News Roundup

The trial of former Senator John Edwards has begun in federal court in Greensboro. In the federal cases I tried, jury selection took about as long as it takes me to read the newspaper in the morning, but in the Edwards trial, it’s scheduled to take a week or more. Meanwhile, a number of articles … Read more

Sufficient or Insufficient?

Under G.S. 14-208.18, it is a crime for certain sex offenders “to knowingly be at” certain locations, including “[o]n the premises of any place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors.” The court of appeals recently decided State v. Harris, a case concerning an indictment for that offense. The court’s opinion makes some interesting points, so I’ll set out the indictment, and then administer a quiz.

The indictment alleged that the defendant

did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously on the premises of Winget Park Elementary School, located at . . . Charlotte, North Carolina. A place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors and defendant is a registered sex offender.

On appeal, the defendant identified several alleged defects in the indictment. So here’s the quiz: which of the following problems, if any, did the court of appeals view as requiring relief for the defendant?

a. The omission of “go” or “be” from the phrase “did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously on the premises

b. The failure to allege “knowingly,” which is the mens rea term used in G.S. 14-208.18

c. The lack of any antecedent for the phrase “[a] place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors”

d. The failure to specify that the defendant’s reportable conviction was for an offense in Article 7A of Chapter 14

e. None of the above, the court determined that the indictment was sufficient

The answer is after the break.

Read more