A UNC School of Government Blog
A trial court is free to consider all kinds of information about a defendant when deciding on a sentence. See State v. Pope, 257 N.C. 326 (1962) (“[I]t would not be in the interest of justice to put a trial judge in a straitjacket of restrictive procedure in sentencing. . . . He should be … Read more
The contents of an envelope tucked under the windshield wiper of your car parked on a city street doesn’t seem as ominous as a citation hand-delivered through your driver’s side window by a law enforcement officer illuminated by the flashing blue lights of her police vehicle. But both may land you in district criminal court. … Read more
An involuntary confession can’t be used against a defendant at trial, not even to impeach him if he testifies. See, e.g., Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). Whether a confession is voluntary is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances, see, e.g., Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993), and asking whether “the … Read more
When a defendant introduces evidence at trial showing that the State has failed to prove some element of the crime, the strategy is sometimes described as a failure of proof or “negating” defense. Mistake of fact is one such negating defense. Mistake of fact offers a defense if it negates a mental state required to … Read more
North Carolina’s implied-consent laws were substantially amended in 2006 to, in the words of the Governor’s task force recommending the change, “prevent dismissals under Knoll.” In State v. Knoll, 422 N.C. 535 (1988), the court ordered that charges of impaired driving against defendants in three separate cases be dismissed because the magistrate in each case … Read more
I am sometimes asked if a defendant convicted of a reportable sex crime can plea bargain his or her way out of the obligation to register. I have also been asked if a defendant convicted of a non-reportable offense can plead his or her way into registration. A formal advisory opinion from that state attorney … Read more
Today, the court of appeals decided State v. Baker. Baker explains when a trial judge is required to make findings of fact when hearing a motion to suppress, and it raises what I think is an interesting search and seizure issue. The facts were as follows. An officer was on patrol near a nursing facility … Read more
I wrote here about the court of appeals’ recent ruling in State v. Davis that expert testimony calculating the defendant’s alcohol concentration based on odor alone was improperly admitted at defendant’s trial on second-degree murder, impaired driving, and other charges arising from a fatal hit-and-run accident. This post addresses the court’s ruling in Davis as … Read more
The top story of the week is the controversy surrounding the new ban on electronic sweepstakes. I posted about it yesterday, and after my initial post, the Attorney General issued an opinion letter regarding the situation, and announced his intention to appeal a superior court judge’s ruling that held part of the law unconstitutional. But … Read more
I’ve blogged before about the General Assembly’s latest effort to eradicate internet sweepstakes. Because G.S. 14-306.4 went into effect yesterday, I’ve had lots of questions about the law. (I even made a brief television appearance — apparently, my 15 minutes seconds of fame.) My colleague Chris McLaughlin posted about the controversy in this area yesterday … Read more