Recent Blog Posts Page 61 on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Last April, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided two significant cases involving claims that prosecutors impermissibly exercised peremptory challenges against prospective black jurors based on their race:  State v. Hobbs, ___ N.C. ___, 884 S.E.2d 639 (2023) (Hobbs II), and State v. Campbell, ___ N.C. ___884 S.E.2d 674 (2023). This post reviews the framework for the review undertaken by the trial courts in those cases and the state supreme court’s opinions.

There have been some bumps in the road in the rollout of eCourts, the new electronic platform the court system is using in a handful of pilot counties for filing and case management. Now WRAL reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed alleging that the system “is keeping people in jail longer than they should be, and led to hundreds of people being arrested for things they did not do.” For example, the plaintiffs contend that “a Wake County woman was arrested multiple times on the same warrant for charges that were dismissed by a judge.” The Administrative Office of the Courts is not a named defendant but stated in the article that it has “not substantiated that any allegations of wrongful arrest or incarceration was caused” by the new system. Keep reading for more news.

Twenty five years ago, North Carolina adopted graduated licensing for young drivers, a system founded on the principle that “[s]afe driving requires instruction in driving and experience.” G.S. 20-11(a). The statutory scheme implementing this program grants driving privileges on a limited basis and expands those privileges over time and upon the satisfaction of additional requirements. Id. Accordingly, to receive the first level of a driver’s license – termed a limited provisional license – a driver must have held a limited learner’s permit for at least 12 months. The holder of a limited provisional license generally may not drive unsupervised after 9 p.m. and may not have more than one passenger under the age of 21 in the vehicle. Last month, the General Assembly ratified legislation that loosens these requirements.

Many, perhaps most, law enforcement officers in North Carolina are at will employees. As the saying goes, they may be fired for any reason or for no reason. But when such an officer is fired for malfeasance, and that reason is made public such that potential future employers may be aware of it, the officer may be entitled to a “name clearing hearing” at which he or she can dispute the basis for the termination.