The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment generally guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers in person. If a witness was available for an earlier trial or other proceeding and the defendant had an opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness there, the witness testimony from the earlier proceeding may be admitted at a later criminal trial without offending the Confrontation Clause if the witness is unavailable at the time of trial. We have known for some time that this “prior opportunity for cross-examination” can be met at various stages of a criminal proceeding. See State v. Rollins, 226 N.C. App. 129 (2013) (testimony from plea hearing provided prior opportunity for cross); State v. Ross, 216 N.C. App. 337 (2011) (same for testimony at probable cause hearing); State v. Ramirez, (2003) (same for testimony at bond hearing, although the case was decided under hearsay rules and not expressly as a confrontation issue); State v. Chandler, 324 N.C. 172 (1989) (same for testimony from a prior trial); State v. Giles, 83 N.C. App. 487 (1986) (same for testimony from a juvenile transfer hearing). In all those cases, though, the defendant was present at the earlier proceeding, was represented by counsel, and the earlier proceedings could naturally be viewed as a part of the underlying criminal case. In State v. Joyner, 2022-NCCOA-525, ___ N.C. App. ___ (2022), the Court of Appeals expands the concept of prior opportunity to cross to a civil hearing where the defendant did not attend the hearing and was not entitled to counsel. Read on for the details.
News Roundup
The biggest national (and international) criminal law story this week involves the December 1988 terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103. The flight was destroyed by a bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people – many of them American students on their way home for the holidays. Two Libyan men alleged to have been involved in the attack were tried in 2001. One was convicted and imprisoned, and has since died. The other was acquitted. Two years ago, federal prosecutors charged a third man, former Libyan intelligence officer Abu Agila Mohammad Mas’ud Kheir Al-Marimi, who is thought to have been the bomb-maker. Al-Marimi is now in US custody and some reports indicate that he has confessed to his role in the attack. However, the circumstances of his reported confession and transfer to the US are unclear, with some suggesting that he was essentially kidnapped by a warlord, forced to admit guilt, and handed over to the US despite the lack of any formal extradition agreement between Libya’s dysfunctional government and the US. The Guardian has more here. I expect significant legal wrangling over the purported confession as the criminal case proceeds. Keep reading for more news.
2022 Criminal Legislative Summaries
It’s the most wonderful time of the year: legislative summaries are now available. Though the North Carolina General Assembly has not yet adjourned, it does not expect to have votes during any of the sessions held for the remainder of the year. Nevertheless, there can always be surprises. For now, you can read summaries of … Read more
State v. Eagle: Blue Lights and Impeded Egress Equal a Fourth Amendment Seizure
The North Carolina Court of Appeals in State v. Eagle, 2022-NCCOA-680, ___ N.C. App. ___, 879 S.E.2d 377 (2022), considered whether the driver of a car that had already stopped when a patrol officer pulled in behind it with blue lights activated was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court had ruled that the driver was not immediately seized by the officer in this encounter. Instead, the court ruled that a seizure occurred only when the officer took Ms. Eagle’s driver’s license and returned to her patrol car. By this point, the officer had developed reasonable suspicion to believe Ms. Eagle was impaired. The Court of Appeals reversed, determining that Eagle was seized at the outset of this encounter. This post discusses State v. Eagle and its relationship to other recent seizure jurisprudence.
Incapacity to Proceed (G.S. Chapter 15A) and Incompetency (G.S. Chapter 35A): Apples and Oranges?
Incapacity to proceed under North Carolina General Statutes (G.S.) Chapter 15A and incompetency proceedings under G.S. Chapter 35A involve, at least in part, a court inquiry into someone’s cognitive abilities. Incapacity to proceed is narrowly focused on a person’s cognition within a criminal legal proceeding. Incompetency is a bigger picture analysis, more broadly focused on the individual’s life and needs, with a bit of forward-looking involved. In that way, incompetency is concerned with both a person’s cognitive abilities and their functioning.
These proceedings are separate and distinct from one another. Yet, if a client has history or present involvement in both, the client’s attorney in one proceeding should know about and understand the other. That attorney may want, for example, to access information or introduce evidence from the other proceeding. The attorney will want to consider issues such as information sharing and confidentiality, and the admissibility or other uses of records from one proceeding in the other.
These issues may be the subject of future posts. First, however, we need to understand incapacity to proceed under G.S. Chapter 15A and incompetency under G.S. Chapter 35A. This post provides a primer on incapacity and incompetency proceedings and compares the standards for each.
News Roundup
Tens of thousands of residences and businesses in Moore County began the week without electricity after two electrical substations in the county were damaged by gunfire on Saturday evening. Federal, state and local authorities are investigating, and CNN reports that authorities recovered nearly two dozen shell casings from a high-powered rifle at the scenes. Authorities believe the person or persons who damaged the substations knew what they were doing, but have not identified a motive for their actions. The News and Observer reported on widespread speculation that the attacks were related to a drag queen show in Southern Pines that began just as the substations were damaged, but CNN reports that investigators have no evidence connecting those events. Duke Energy completed repairs Wednesday, and nearly everyone’s power had been restored by Thursday morning. A reward of up to $75,000 is being offered to anyone who provides information leading to an arrest and conviction.
Case Summaries – N.C. Court of Appeals (Dec. 6, 2022)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on December 6, 2022. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
Updated Model Local Bail Policy
The North Carolina General Statutes require the senior resident superior court judge to issue a local bail policy, in consultation with the chief district court judge or judges. G.S. 15A-535(a). At the Criminal Justice Innovation Lab, we’ve had a lot of requests for help updating these policies. And we understand why. Doing this work is … Read more
Circuit Split! New Opinion Upholds Warrantless Tire Chalking
Shea posted here about a 2019 opinion from the Sixth Circuit holding that chalking tires for purposes of parking enforcement was a Fourth Amendment search and rejecting at least some of the proposed legal justifications for the practice. That case led to some further proceedings and eventually to a new opinion, Taylor v. City of Saginaw, Michigan, 11 F.4th 483 (6th Cir. 2021), holding that the suspicionless chalking of tires (1) is a search, (2) is not justified as a community caretaking function, and (3) is not justified as an administrative search. The Taylor court ruled that the law was not previously clearly established, so the parking officer whose conduct was at issue was entitled to qualified immunity. But going forward, warrantless tire chalking is a no-no in the Sixth Circuit. Now another circuit has weighed in with a different perspective.