BLOG
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 […]
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 […]
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 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 […]
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.
Several earlier posts address the requirement that a defendant be notified of statutory rights related to implied consent testing before being requested to submit to a test of his breath, […]
Everyone knows that under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), a prosecutor must disclose material exculpatory or mitigating evidence to the defense. But does Brady apply only prior to […]
I’m guessing that the criminal defense bar thinks that they have more strikes than hits in post-conviction proceedings. But a recent Court of Appeals case reminds us that it is […]
In Chapel Hill, the start of the John Edwards trial is big news. The News and Observer covers the beginning of jury selection here, and has an interesting story on […]
Although the big news today in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case is that Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder, I want to focus on something that happened earlier in […]