This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on June 4, 2024. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
In North Carolina, driver’s licenses are revoked for failure to appear in court (FTA) and failure to pay court-ordered monetary obligations (FTP). Not having a valid driver’s license is at […]
Former President Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies in his “hush money” trial in New York yesterday, making him the first former president in U.S. history to be convicted of a crime. On their second day of deliberations, the jury found that Trump illegally falsified business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to an adult film star before the 2016 election. He could face up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine for each count and is set to be sentenced on July 11.
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the Supreme Court of North Carolina released on May 23, 2024. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
In Part I of a series of posts on confidential informants, I revisited the landmark case of U.S. v. Roviaro, which began when a Chicago police officer hid in the trunk of an informant’s car to listen in on a heroin deal. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the officer in the trunk was no substitute for the confidential informant (“CI”) in the driver’s seat and required disclosure of the CI’s identity to the defense. I also introduced the basic dichotomy set out in Roviaro: generally, where the CI is more of a tipster, the CI’s identity need not be revealed, but where the CI is an active participant, the defense is entitled to it. The constitutional underpinnings of this distinction, based on due process and confrontation principles, continue to guide courts today, although the analysis has evolved.
This second post will address the North Carolina statutes at play. These statutes complicate and refine the basic constitutional question of whether fundamental fairness requires the State to turn over the CI’s identity.
Are there limits on the court’s ability to continue the dispositional hearing in a delinquency case? The Court of Appeals recently identified one limit In re D.R.F., Jr., ____ N.C.App. _____ (May 7. 2024). The court held that a continuance for the sole purpose of placing the juvenile in secure custody as punishment before disposition is not a valid basis for that continuance and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
The trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump for alleged falsification of business records is nearing its conclusion. The prosecution’s key witness, Michael Cohen, was on the stand for four days, describing what he and Trump discussed back in 2016 and 2017 when Cohen served as Trump’s lawyer. He outlined a plan to conceal a sexual affair from the public by making hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump’s intent in making these payments, and whether a falsification occurred in furtherance of another crime, are the central questions of the trial. The defense engaged in a lengthy cross-examination to undermine Cohen’s credibility.
The prosecution then rested, and the defense presented the testimony of one witness, also an attorney. The witness, Robert Costello, had previously given legal counsel to Cohen after Cohen’s house was raided by FBI agents. After the defense rested, the parties debated the appropriate jury instructions. Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, and the jury could begin deliberations Wednesday.
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on May 21, 2024. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the prohibition against the State commenting on a defendant’s failure to testify, or, in other words, a defendant’s silence at trial. Such comments are disallowed as they abridge a defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence. This post addresses a related issue: When and how may the State in a criminal trial use evidence of a defendant’s silence before trial to establish a defendant’s guilt or impeach a defendant’s credibility? (This is not the first time we have written about this topic on the blog. Jessie Smith did so here in 2012; nevertheless, a few relevant cases have been decided since then, and I thought it would be helpful to revisit the issue.)
This post summarizes published criminal and related decisions of interest from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2024. Previous summaries of Fourth Circuit criminal cases can be found here.