Fatal Variance — Use It or Lose It
A fatal defect in an indictment occurs when the indictment fails to allege an essential element of the crime charged. A fatal variance, by contrast, occurs when the facts brought […]
News Roundup
I’ve been traveling a fair bit lately, which made me especially receptive to this story about things the TSA has found on air passengers or in their luggage this year. […]
Alibi Defense Doesn’t Mean the State Can’t Amend the Offense Date
A criminal indictment must allege an offense date. G.S. 15A-924(a)(4) provides that a criminal pleading must contain “[a] statement or cross reference in each count indicating that the offense charged […]
All You Ever Wanted to Know about DWI Sentencing But Were Afraid to Ask
I’ve heard folks say that there is criminal law . . . and then there is impaired driving law. What I think they mean is that while impaired driving is, […]
Back and Forth on Visual Estimates of Speed
Can an officer’s visual estimate of a vehicle’s speed, uncorroborated by radar, pacing, or other techniques, support a speeding stop? The Fourth Circuit has been whipsawing back and forth on […]
Fascinating Footnote 3
The most famous footnote in all the world is generally acknowledged to be footnote 4 in United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). That footnote introduced to […]
News Roundup
There has been plenty of criminal law news this week. 1. Jared Lee Loughner pled guilty on Tuesday in federal district court to 6 counts of murder and 13 counts […]
State v. Sellars: De Minimis Delay for Dog Sniffs Permissible
May an officer prolong a routine traffic stop for four and a half minutes to allow a drug dog to sniff the exterior of the vehicle–even if the officer lacks […]
Probation’s Risk-Needs Assessment Process in a Nutshell
For the past few years, the Section of Community Corrections of the Division of Adult Correction has been transitioning to what they call "evidence-based practices," or EBP. The basic idea is to use series of assessment tools to identify which offenders are mostly likely to reoffend and most in need of programming, and then tailor their supervision accordingly. The process involves some terminology that is probably familiar by now to most probation officers, but may be less familiar to judges, lawyers, and defendants. Today’s post provides an overview of the process probation officers use to sort probationers into different supervision levels and an introduction into what those levels mean for probationers as a practical matter.
Crawford’s Implications on the Bruton Rule
In yesterday’s post I set out the basics of the Bruton rule. Put simply, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), held that a defendant’s confrontation clause rights are […]