Recent blog posts - 78 of 395

The North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission released its biennial Correctional Program Evaluation, better known as the Recidivism Report. It is prepared in conjunction with the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, as required by G.S. 164-47. The full report is available here. It covers defendants placed on probation or released from prison in Fiscal Year 2019, and examines their subsequent arrests, convictions, and incarcerations during a two-year follow-up period.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the Supreme Court of North Carolina released on August 19, 2022. This summary will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.

The legal requirement for sight and sound separation between juveniles and adult inmates states that “juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent or juveniles within the purview of paragraph (11) will not be detained or confined in any institution in which they have sight or sound contact with adult inmates.” 34 U.S.C.A. §11133(a)(12)(A). It may be somewhat intuitive to understand how this requirement applies in settings where adults are detained for long periods of time—such as jails and lockups. The application of this requirement in court holding facilities may be less intuitive. This post explains how sight and sound separation applies in the context of the courthouse.

It’s been nearly a year since I’ve written about cannabis issues in the state. Many of the issues I’ve discussed here before remain unresolved, but there has been recent legislation and a new case impacting this area. This post examines the current state of the law on hemp and marijuana.

I wrote last week about the different state and federal approaches to sealing search warrants and related documents. It was a timely topic in light of the search warrant the FBI obtained for former President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago. That search warrant and the inventory of items seized from former President Trump’s home have already been unsealed, but the affidavit supporting the issuance of the warrant has not. This week, the magistrate judge who issued the warrant heard arguments about whether the affidavit should be made public as well. ABC11 reports here that the judge plans to release at least a redacted version of the affidavit. The Department of Justice argued that the affidavit provides a road map to its investigation. It has a week to submit proposed redactions to the court. Keep reading for more news.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on August 16, 2022. This summary will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.

Under G.S. 15A-1347(b), if a defendant waives a probation revocation hearing in district court, he or she may not appeal the revocation or imposition of a split sentence to superior court for a de novo violation hearing. That law was enacted in 2013 as part of legislation designed to streamline the superior court caseload, focusing it on contested cases and those implicating a defendant’s right to a jury trial. S.L. 2013-385. I wrote a post about that law in 2014, here, wondering about some of the then-new law’s wrinkles. The Court of Appeals considered its first case under G.S. 15A-1347(b) last year in State v. Flanagan, 2021-NCCOA-456, 279 N.C. App. 228 (2021).

This post summarizes criminal and related decisions published by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during July 2022. Cases of interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous Fourth Circuit case summaries are available here.

Last week, the FBI searched former President Trump’s home at the Mar-a-Lago Club pursuant to a search warrant. At first none of the relevant documents were publicly available. The application, the warrant itself, and the inventory were all sealed. The Government, with the consent of former President Trump, later moved to unseal the warrant and the inventory. That motion was granted and anyone can access the now-public documents here. The application remains under seal, though members of the news media have moved to unseal it. Because several people asked me about public access to federal search warrants and related documents, and because the process isn’t exactly the same as it is under state law, I thought I’d do a post comparing state and federal law on this issue.

To prove impaired driving, the State must establish that the defendant drove a vehicle while impaired. A person drives when he or she is “actual physical control of a vehicle which is in motion or which has the engine running.” G.S. 20-4.01(25). Sometimes the State may establish driving through direct evidence. For example, a law enforcement officer or another witness may observe the defendant driving and may testify to that fact. In other cases, a law enforcement officer may encounter the person the officer believes was driving after the driving has concluded, perhaps in or near the car or at some other location. In those cases, the State may seek to establish driving based on circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in State v. Rouse, 2022-NCCOA-496, __ N.C. App. ___ (July 19, 2022), considers when such circumstantial evidence is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.