Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of taking indecent liberties with a child and determining that the State presented sufficient evidence of the N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1340.16(d)(15) aggravating factor to submit that aggravating factor to the jury, holding that there was not sufficient evidence to submit the aggravating factor to the jury.The aggravating factor at issue on appeal was that Defendant "took advantage of a position of trust or confidence, including a domestic relationship, to commit the offense[s]." The court of appeals determined that there was a permissible inference that because of the victim's extreme reliance on her mother, the victim, who was three years old at the time of the offense, would trust and rely on Defendant, her mother's boyfriend, even though the victim only interacted with Defendant in person on two occasions. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the State's evidence at trial was insufficient to establish the trust or confidence aggravating factor because the State failed to show that the relationship between the victim and Defendant was conducive to her reliance on him. View "State v. Helms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the omission of pertinent facts in an officer's search warrant application resulted in a lack of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant for either Defendant's residence or vehicle.The officer in this case possessed information that would suffice to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant but failed to include key portions of this information in his affidavit supporting the warrant. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the affidavit sufficiently established probable cause to support the magistrate's issuance of a warrant authorizing a search of Defendant's residence and vehicle. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause to search the vehicle but was insufficient to establish probable cause to search the residence. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the motion to suppress should have been allowed as to evidence seized from both Defendant's residence and vehicle. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgment revoking Defendant's probation after his probation period expired without making a finding of fact that good caused existed to do so under the circumstances, holding that such a finding is statutorily required.Specifically at issue was whether the court of appeals erred by affirming the trial court's revoking of Defendant's probation without making a specific finding that good cause existed to do so despite the expiration of Defendant's probationary period. The Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeals did so err, holding that the trial court's order failed to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1344(f)(3) by activating Defendant's sentences without first making a finding of good cause to revoke Defendant's probation despite the expiration of his probationary term. View "State v. Morgan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing, but only as to Defendant individually, the superior court's determination that North Carolina's satellite-based monitoring (SBM) of sex offenders is constitutional, holding that the court of appeals erred by limiting its holding to the constitutionality of the SBM program as applied only to Defendant.Defendant was statutorily required to enroll in the SBM program and to wear an ankle monitor at all times for his lifetime based on his convictions for sex crimes. Defendant argued that the imposition of the monitoring violated his constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The trial court found that the SBM program was not unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court held that a State conducts a search when it attaches a device to a person's body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual's movements. On remand, the superior court upheld the imposition of lifetime SBM on Defendant. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that lifetime SBM of Defendant was unreasonable. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed, holding that the program is unconstitutional as applied to all individuals who, like Defendant, are subject to mandatory lifetime SBM based solely on their status as a "recidivist." View "State v. Grady" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder and other offenses and sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole, holding that the trial court violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him by limiting Defendant's cross-examination of the State's principal witness, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.At Defendant's murder trial, Lakenda Malachi was the only witness to provide direct evidence of Defendant's presence at the scene. Defendant sought to impeach Malachi's testimony, but the trial court sustained objections to defense counsel's questions. After Defendant was convicted he appealed. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court committed constitutional error by restricting Defendant's cross-examination of Malachi and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly found that the trial court committed prejudicial error. View "State v. Bowman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that a law enforcement officer's warrantless search of Defendant's USB drive was not permissible under the "private-search doctrine," holding that the State failed to carry its burden of presenting competent evidence establishing that the officer's warrantless search was permissible under the private-search doctrine.The officer conducted a warrantless search of Defendant's USB drive following a prior search of the USB drive by a private individual. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the warrantless search was not authorized under the private-search doctrine but that remand was appropriate to determine whether probable cause existed to issue the search warrant without the evidence obtained from the unlawful search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the private-search doctrine cannot apply to a thumb drive because, even though some of the thumb drive has been previously opened, an officer cannot proceed with "virtual certainty" that nothing else of significance is in the device. View "State v. Terrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of a divided panel of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's convictions of felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny, holding that the evidence presented at trial concerning Defendant's possession of allegedly stolen property was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction under the doctrine of recent possession.Defendant's conviction was based on items not found in Defendant's possession from an earlier breaking and entering. At issue in this case was whether there was substantial evidence under the doctrine of recent possession that Defendant had the "power and intent to control the [stolen] goods" to the exclusion of others. The Supreme Court held that the evidence presented at trial constituted substantial evidence of the second prong under the doctrine of recent possession - exclusive possession - and therefore, the court of appeals majority erred in vacating Defendant's convictions. View "State v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss a charge of possession of heroin for insufficiency of the evidence, holding that the record contained ample evidence tending to show that the substance that Defendant allegedly possessed was heroin.On appeal, Defendant argued that the state's evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the seized evidence was heroin. The court of appeals agreed, holding that because the State failed to present evidence of a scientifically valid chemical analysis identifying the seized substance as heroin, the State had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the seized substance was heroin. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where Defendant told an identifying officer that she had ingested heroin, several investigating officers identified the substance seized as heroin, and the substance Defendant was charged with possessing field-tested positive for heroin on two different occasions, the evidence was sufficient to support the charge. View "State v. Osborne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgments of the trial courts allowing Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the trial courts' findings of fact failed to support their legal conclusion that the investigating officer lacked the probable cause needed to place Defendant under arrest for impaired driving.Defendant was charged with driving while subject to an impairing substance. In granting the motion to suppress, the trial courts concluded that the investigating officer lacked probable cause to place Defendant under arrest for driving while impaired. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the facts supported a conclusion that the officer had probable cause to stop and cite Defendant for driving while impaired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the undisputed facts supported the officer's decision to place Defendant under arrest for impaired driving. View "State v. Parisi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was violated when the State voluntarily dismissed Defendant's charge after his first trial ended in a hung jury mistrial and when Defendant was retried six years later when new evidence emerged, holding that Defendant's second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause and that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment on double jeopardy grounds.Specifically, the Court held (1) jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and continues following a mistrial until a terminating event occurs; (2) when the State enters a voluntary dismissal after jeopardy has attached, jeopardy is terminated in the defendant's favor, and the State cannot retry the case without violating a defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy; and (3) because Defendant's jeopardy remained attached following the mistrial declaration in his first trial and was terminated when the State subsequently entered a dismissal of the charge under N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-931, Defendant's second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "State v. Courtney" on Justia Law