Earlier this month, the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, found the federal felon-in-possession statute unconstitutional as applied. The decision was based on the new interpretive approach announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. __, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The Third Circuit’s ruling is a massive decision that seems virtually certain to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Keep reading for more details.
News Roundup
The indictment of former President Trump continues to dominate the news. Since Shea’s roundup last week noting the federal charges, the indictment was unsealed. It reveals that Trump faces 37 felonies. Most of the charges (31 counts) relate to Trump’s alleged improper storage and retention of national defense information. The indictment also charges conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding and concealing documents from the grand jury and from investigators, and making false statements to investigators. The charging document is a so-called “speaking” indictment, laying out much more specific detail about the circumstances surrounding the charges than the more common bare-bones indictments describing only the commission of the elements of the offense. You can read the indictment here or here. Judge Aileen Cannon, who presided over earlier litigation regarding the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, has been assigned to the case. The former President has pled not guilty. Read on for more criminal law news.
Convictions Vacated for “Technical” Pleading Defects
Author’s Note: The Court of Appeals opinion in State v. Singleton that is discussed below was reversed by the North Carolina Supreme Court. You can read more about the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision here.
Two recent cases from the North Carolina appellate courts indicate that reports of the demise of technical pleading requirements may have been greatly exaggerated. I am responsible for at least one of those reports. Several years ago, I posted about State v. Brawley, 370 N.C. 626 (2018) (per curiam), in which the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a conviction based on an indictment charging the defendant with stealing shirts belonging to “Belk’s Department Stores, an entity capable of owning property,” even though “Belk’s Department Stores” was not the full legal name of the entity that suffered the loss. I noted then that Brawley was one in a series of recent state supreme court opinions rejecting claims that technical pleading defects deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the offense. See also State v. Jones, 255 N.C. App. 364 (2017) (failure to allege every element in a citation was not a jurisdictional defect).
Yet, in recent months, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has issued two published opinions vacating convictions based on fatally defective indictments. The first was a rape conviction pursuant to an indictment that failed to allege the defendant knew the victim was physically helpless. State v. Singleton, 285 N.C. App. 630 (2022). The second was a conviction for possessing a firearm at a protest where the pleading failed to state that the offense occurred on public property. State v. Reavis, __ N.C. App. __, 882 S.E.2d 590 (2022). To be sure, each of these cases involves the failure to plead elements of the offense, which is distinguishable from the victim-naming requirements in Brawley and related cases. Nevertheless, each relies on the notion that defects in an indictment deprive the court of its power to adjudicate a case, even when the pleading is sufficient to pass constitutional muster. This post will discuss these cases and consider potential future developments.
2023 Satellite-Based Monitoring Revisions
The General Assembly last amended our satellite-based monitoring (“SBM”) laws in 2021, substantially reworking who qualifies for SBM, the process of petitioning for termination of SBM, and the potential length of SBM (among other changes). If you are still adjusting to those new rules, buckle up. Tucked into the back of S.L 2023-143 (SB 20) are new amendments that once again substantially revise North Carolina’s SBM scheme (in Part VIII, starting at page 44 of the linked bill), effective for SBM orders entered on or after October 1, 2023. This post examines those changes and their potential implications.
The Title is Affeer’d: Larceny or False Pretenses?
The perpetrators in State v. White, No. COA22-369, 2023 WL 3471116 (N.C. Ct. App. May 16, 2023), wrongfully obtained merchandise from a Walmart by purchasing an $89 child’s car seat box which they had surreptitiously filled with nearly $10,000 worth of electronics. The defendant was convicted of larceny, conspiracy to commit larceny, and obtaining property by false pretenses, and appealed, arguing the trial court erred in allowing convictions for both larceny and false pretenses. The Court of Appeals disagreed, saying “the crimes of larceny and obtaining property by false pretenses are not mutually exclusive.” White, 2023 WL 3471116, at *5. Ultimately, it held that there was sufficient evidence to support both charges and that the trial court did not err by instructing on both. Id. This post examines the difference between larceny and false pretenses to determine when a defendant may be convicted of both offenses based on a single transaction.
News Roundup
Multiple news outlets, including the Washington Post and New York Times reported yesterday that former President Donald Trump has been federally indicted in connection with the discovery of classified documents in his Mar-a-Lago home after he left the White House. The charges have been called a “seismic event” that puts the nation in an “extraordinary position” since not only is Trump the first former president to ever be federally charged, but he also is the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. The latest charges add to the former president’s legal woes as he was indicted in March in New York state court in connection with allegations that he paid hush-money to adult film star Stormy Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election. As big as this news is, it is just one of the many criminal law headlines from the past week.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (June 6, 2023)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on June 6, 2023. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
New Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence
Last month, the North Carolina General Assembly passed S.L. 2023-14 (S 20) which largely covers changes to abortion laws. Within this bill is also a newly defined “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” which takes effect for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2023. This post discusses the utility of the new offense and the implications that it may have on a defendant’s gun rights.
Does an Officer Who Receives a Giglio Letter Have a Right to a Name Clearing Hearing?
In my most recent post, I noted that a law enforcement officer who is fired will sometimes have a right to a “name clearing hearing” at which the officer may supply evidence contradicting negative information about the officer’s honesty or integrity that the agency released in connection with the officer’s termination. I ended that post by asking whether an officer who is fired in connection with a Giglio letter is entitled to such a hearing. Under most circumstances, the answer to that question is no. Keep reading for more details.
News Roundup
The General Assembly is working hard to fashion a budget for the upcoming biennium, but in the meantime, legislators are conducting other business. Of interest to this audience, H347, a bill that would legalize gambling on sports, appears to be very close to becoming law. Both chambers have passed the bill, but in slightly different versions that will need to be reconciled before final passage. Meanwhile, S3, a bill that would legalize medical marijuana, has passed the Senate and is working its way through House committees. Its fate in the House is uncertain but that is more than could be said in prior years, when similar measures have passed the Senate but have not received meaningful consideration in the House. Keep reading for more news.