This post summarizes criminal decisions published by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during September 2022. Cases of interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous Fourth Circuit case summaries are available here.
News Roundup
Last week, President Biden issued this proclamation effectively pardoning “all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who committed the offense of simple possession of marijuana” in violation of federal law, including the laws of Washington, DC. It seems that no one will be released from prison as a result, as no one is in federal prison solely for marijuana possession, and marijuana possession has been permitted under DC law since 2014. However, the US Sentencing Commission’s analysis reveals that over 6,500 US citizens, and over 1,000 legal permanent residents, will have previous federal convictions wiped away under the pardon proclamation. I could not find a similar analysis of the effect of the pardon on DC convictions.
Of course, the vast majority of convictions for marijuana possession take place in state court. Here in North Carolina, there were almost 2,000 convictions for simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance last year alone. According to WCNC, Governor Cooper supports President Biden’s issuance of the blanket pardon. The Governor has said that “simple possession of small amounts of marijuana should not be a crime” and that he has “asked [his] lawyers to examine North Carolina law regarding simple possession of marijuana convictions and pardons to determine if there is action we can and should take.” If the Governor does take any action, we will of course cover it here. Read on for more news.
Annual Report from the Judicial College (2021-2022)
The North Carolina Judicial College was founded in 2005 to expand the education and training the School of Government has provided for judicial branch officials since the 1930s. Judicial College funding has enabled the School to provide more courses for a growing court system and to offer training in small group, interactive educational settings. Our latest … Read more
October 28th Webinar: Promoting Court Appearance & Improving Responses to Non-Appearances
On October 28, 2022, from 12:30pm to 2pm, the UNC School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab will host a FREE webinar, Court Appearance Matters: Promoting Justice & Efficiency by Addressing the Problem of Missed Court Dates.
Missed appearances contribute to system-wide inefficiencies and case backlogs, use additional law enforcement resources, inconvenience victims and witnesses, and can result in collateral consequences for the person charged. However, data and experience suggest that most missed appearances are for low-level offenses and may be due to systemic barriers, such as lack of transportation or inability to take time off from work. Deliberate policies can address these barriers, ensure public safety, and improve efficiency.
C-CAT 2.0 Is Here!
We are excited to announce the launch of the completely revised and updated Collateral Consequences Assessment Tool!
Initially launched in 2012, the Collateral Consequences Assessment Tool, or C-CAT, is a central, searchable database created to help attorneys, policy makers, service providers, and affected individuals identify, assess, and contrast collateral consequences that may be triggered by a criminal conviction. The tool is available here at no cost.
News Roundup
There was a ton of criminal law news this week, but far and away the news item that I found most intriguing was this one about new food offerings at the State Fair. Rattlesnake corn dogs? Sign me up! And by that, I mean sign me up on the list of people who will never in a million years eat a rattlesnake corn dog! As far as actual criminal law news goes, the week’s top stories follow.
Case Summaries – N.C. Court of Appeals (Oct. 4, 2022)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on October 4, 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.
Alcohol Concentration Restrictions on Restored Licenses and the Enforcement of Violations
When a person is convicted of driving while impaired under G.S. 20-138.1, the person’s license is revoked for one year. G.S. 20-17(a)(2); G.S. 20-19(c1). (A person who has one or more prior convictions for an offense involving impaired driving may be subject to a longer period of revocation, depending on when those offenses occurred.) At the conclusion of that one-year revocation period, the person may seek to have his or her license restored by furnishing proof of financial responsibility and by paying a restoration fee of $140.25. G.S. 20-7(c1), (i1). The license then may be restored with a restriction prohibiting the person from operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more at any relevant time after the driving. G.S. 20-19(c3). That restriction, listed on the driver’s license as Restriction 19, remains in effect for three years. This post addresses how such a restriction is enforced and the consequences for a substantiated violation.
Exploring the Scope of North Carolina’s Strangulation Law
What do you typically think of when you hear the word “strangulation”? If you are like most people, the word probably triggers a mental image of hands around someone’s throat. Thinking forward to the aftereffects of strangulation, you might imagine bruises around a person’s neck, redness, scratches, or other visible signs of injury.
Although those are common results, it is not uncommon for a person to present with no external injuries after having been strangled. Rather, a person could potentially be suffering from serious internal injuries. If overlooked, internal injuries can result in severe or permanent conditions.
North Carolina’s strangulation law requires both that the perpetrator “strangle” the victim and inflict “physical injury.” This post explores the meaning of those elements, the potential issues that may arise in applying them, and the approach other jurisdictions take toward the crime of strangulation. The post closes with some observations about whether North Carolina’s current definition of strangulation adequately addresses the ways in which the crime may occur.
Is It Proper to Charge a Person with RDO for Refusing to Open the Door for a Search Warrant?
I was at the magistrates’ fall conference last week when a magistrate asked me whether an occupant of a dwelling could properly be charged with resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer (“RDO”) for declining to unlock and open the door for an officer executing a search warrant. At first I thought so, but later became less sure. So I decided to look into it and write about it here.