This post summarizes published criminal law decisions released by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2021 that may be of interest to state practitioners.
Case Summaries — Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 11, 2021)
This post summarizes criminal decisions released by the Supreme Court of North Carolina on June 11, 2021.
News Roundup
The Asheville Citizen-Times reports that there has been recent controversy in Madison County following the sheriff’s office hiring a former Asheville police officer and the adoption of a politically charged resolution by county commissioners expressing support for law enforcement. Keep reading for more on this story and other news.
Sealed Indictments
Blame it on the pandemic, I suppose, but somehow I missed this interesting article from March of last year that looked into how often (and why) search warrants are sealed in North Carolina. Former SOG faculty member Michael Crowell was quoted in the article, and his blog post discussing the significance of In re Cooper, 200 N.C. App. 180 (2009) for sealed warrants is available here. I highly recommend reading both, if you haven’t already seen them
Those articles reminded me of a similar issue that I’ve occasionally had questions about, but I don’t think we’ve ever covered on this blog. What about sealed indictments?
Chief Justice’s Latest Order Whittles Emergency Directives Down to Two
Half of the adults in North Carolina have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and the number of people testing positive for the virus in the state continues to plummet. Fewer than 200 positive cases were identified on the last day for which case counts were reported. Metrics like these signal the waning of a pandemic that has altered the lives of North Carolinians over the past 15 months and that has hampered the operations of state courts. On Friday, Chief Justice Paul Newby issued an order, effective today, extending only two of the dozens of emergency directives that have been issued over the course of the pandemic. Noting that COVID-19 concerns have caused cases to accumulate in the courts, Justice Newby stated that he was extending for 30 days only those directives necessary to dispose of those accumulated cases: Emergency Directive 3 and Emergency Directive 5.
Case Summaries – U.S. Supreme Court (June 1-3, 2021)
This post summarizes decisions released by the United States Supreme Court on June 1, 2021 and June 3, 2021. These summaries, written by Shea Denning and Brittany Williams, will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to present.
News Roundup
On Tuesday, President Joe Biden spoke at an event in Tulsa, Oklahoma, marking the 100th anniversary of a 1921 racist mob attack that left hundreds dead and the Black community of Greenwood destroyed but that was not widely known by the general public until recently. NPR notes that several documentary projects focusing on what is now known as the Tulsa Race Massacre are being released this month, including films from PBS and the History Channel. Keep reading for more news.
Case Summaries – N.C. Court of Appeals (June 1, 2021)
This post summarizes published criminal decisions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on June 1, 2021. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to present.
When is a Procedural Bar Not a Procedural Bar? MARs, Gatekeeper Orders, and the Procedural Bar
We get a lot of questions about motions for appropriate relief (“MARs”). Post-conviction can be a daunting area for practitioners and judges alike. On the state and federal levels, the procedural issues alone can feel like a maze. A recent(ish) case from the Court of Appeals, State v. Blake, ___ N.C. App. ___, 853 S.E.2d 838 (Dec. 31, 2020), shines some light on aspects of the procedural bar in state post-conviction proceedings and is the subject of today’s post.
“Authorization” in the Context of Computer Crimes
I previously wrote a blog post about North Carolina’s computer-related crime statutes. Two of our computer crimes are accessing computers under G.S. 14-454 and accessing government computers under G.S. 14-454.1. Both statutes prohibit willfully accessing computers for the purpose of committing fraud or obtaining property or services by false pretenses. Both statutes also prohibit unauthorized access to computers, regardless of fraudulent intent. G.S. 14-453 defines authorization as having the consent or permission of the owner—or of the person licensed or authorized by the owner to grant consent or permission—to access a computer, computer system, or computer network in a manner not exceeding the consent or permission. I’ve gotten several questions recently about the scope of unauthorized access under these statutes, and today’s post examines how these laws may be applied.