Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Law enforcement in New Hanover County received information from a confidential source that the defendant was trafficking and distributing large quantities of cocaine. Based on this tip, Detective Wenk applied for a court order to obtain cell-site location information (CSLI) for the defendant’s phone, along with other investigative tools. The trial court found probable cause and granted the order, allowing law enforcement to monitor the defendant’s CSLI. This data showed the defendant’s phone traveling from Wilmington, North Carolina, to Hayward, California, and back, coinciding with suspected drug trafficking activity. Officers later stopped and searched the defendant’s vehicle, discovering trafficking amounts of cocaine. The defendant was indicted on multiple drug-related charges and moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the CSLI and subsequent searches.The Superior Court of New Hanover County denied the motion to suppress, finding reasonable suspicion supported the order and the vehicle stop. The defendant entered an Alford plea but appealed the suppression ruling. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the order for CSLI was not supported by probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence should be suppressed. The appellate court rejected the State’s argument that a statutory good faith exception applied, citing prior precedent that the North Carolina Constitution did not recognize such an exception.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the statutory good faith exception in N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 applies only to evidence obtained in substantial violation of Chapter 15A, not to evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. However, the court further held that neither the United States Constitution nor the North Carolina Constitution required exclusion of the CSLI in this case, and formally adopted a good faith exception under the state constitution equivalent to the federal standard. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, upholding the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion. View "State v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Police officers in Charlotte, North Carolina, received a tip from a confidential informant that a man matching the defendant’s description was riding a bicycle and carrying an illegal firearm. Officers located the defendant, who took a shortcut on a dirt path marked “No Trespassing.” After stopping him, officers asked for his identification, which he provided, and requested that he step off his bicycle and remove his backpack. The officers conducted a pat-down with the defendant’s permission. When asked for consent to search his backpack, the defendant initially agreed, then declined several times, expressing fear. Eventually, after further questioning, the defendant agreed to open his backpack, revealing a handgun. The defendant was arrested, and additional contraband was found.The Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the officers had returned his identification and that he freely consented to the search. The court also found that the officers had reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the stop. The defendant entered an Alford plea to the charges and was sentenced to prison. The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the conviction, holding that the trial court’s finding that the officers returned the identification was not supported by competent evidence, and that the defendant’s consent to the search was not voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. It held that competent evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the officers returned the defendant’s identification. The court further held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his backpack. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law

James Bowman was indicted for seven criminal offenses, including two counts of first-degree forcible sexual offense, after an incident involving S.B. on September 8, 2019. S.B. testified that Bowman, armed with a firearm, forced her to engage in various sexual acts, including anal intercourse and fellatio, against her will. Bowman was found guilty on all charges by a jury in his second trial.The Superior Court of Durham County sentenced Bowman to 365 to 498 months of active imprisonment. Bowman appealed, arguing that the trial court's jury instructions violated his right to a unanimous verdict. The Court of Appeals, in a split decision, agreed with Bowman, finding that the trial court's instructions were erroneous and jeopardized his right to a unanimous verdict. The court ordered a new trial for the two counts of first-degree forcible sexual offense.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's jury instructions, when read as a whole, required a unanimous verdict and did not violate Bowman's right to a unanimous jury verdict. The court emphasized that the instructions clearly defined the elements of the offense and the need for unanimity. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address Bowman's remaining arguments. View "State v. Bowman" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury after a shooting at a Raleigh motel. The defendant represented himself at trial and chose to be absent from the courtroom after his closing argument was cut off by the trial court. During jury deliberations, Juror #5 was excused for a medical appointment, and an alternate juror was substituted. The trial court instructed the jury to restart deliberations from the beginning. The jury found the defendant guilty of both charges, and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder conviction and additional imprisonment for the assault conviction.The defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the North Carolina Court of Appeals, arguing that the substitution of an alternate juror during deliberations violated his state constitutional right to a twelve-person jury. The Court of Appeals unanimously agreed, holding that the substitution resulted in a jury of thirteen people, which violated the state constitution. The court vacated the defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial.The State sought discretionary review by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which reviewed the constitutionality of the statute allowing mid-deliberation juror substitution. The Supreme Court held that the statute did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to a jury of twelve, as it required the jury to begin deliberations anew following the substitution. The court presumed that the jury followed the trial court's instructions to restart deliberations, ensuring that the verdict was rendered by a properly constituted jury of twelve. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "State v. Chambers" on Justia Law

Andre Lester was charged and convicted of multiple sex offenses with a minor. At trial, the State presented Verizon phone records to link Lester to the crimes. Exhibit #2 showed the time, date, and connecting number for every call made to or from the phone allegedly belonging to Lester. Exhibit #3 featured a subset of that data, showing communications between Lester’s phone and the victim’s phone. Lester argued that the admission of these exhibits violated the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules because he could not cross-examine the source of the data.The Superior Court of Wake County admitted the exhibits under Rule 803(24), the catch-all hearsay exception, despite acknowledging that they did not meet the business records exception under Rule 803(6). The jury convicted Lester on all counts, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the admission of the exhibits violated the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules, and ordered a new trial.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and found that the Court of Appeals misapplied the Confrontation Clause analysis. The Supreme Court held that machine-generated raw data, if truly machine-generated, are neither hearsay nor testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. The Court emphasized that the primary purpose test should focus on why the data were created, not why they were later retrieved. The Court concluded that if Verizon’s systems recorded the data as part of routine operations, the data were not created for use in a trial. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of Lester’s remaining issues. View "State v. Lester" on Justia Law

In August 1998, a 17-year-old defendant, a member of the Crips gang, participated in the abduction, robbery, and murder of three women, resulting in the death of two and the attempted murder of the third. The defendant was arrested and indicted on multiple charges, including two counts of first-degree murder. In 2000, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to death. The North Carolina Supreme Court vacated the death sentence due to a jury polling error and remanded for resentencing. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Roper v. Simmons, which prohibited the death penalty for juveniles, the defendant was resentenced to life without parole.The trial court later resentenced the defendant under a new statutory scheme following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, which prohibited mandatory life without parole for juveniles. The trial court considered mitigating factors and sentenced the defendant to two consecutive life without parole terms, finding him irreparably corrupt. The defendant appealed, arguing that his sentences violated the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution.The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences, finding that the trial court properly considered all mitigating factors and that the sentences complied with both federal and state constitutional requirements. The court rejected the defendant's argument that his sentences were unconstitutional per se and found that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion of irreparable corruption.The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the state constitution's prohibition on cruel or unusual punishments does not provide broader protections than the Eighth Amendment. The court also found that the trial court's resentencing did not violate the principles established in State v. Kelliher. View "State v. Tirado" on Justia Law

In the early morning of December 2, 2016, Dwayne Garvey and April Holland were shot and killed at a Raleigh hotel. Surveillance footage showed two men, later identified as the defendant and Brandon Hill, entering the hotel and committing the murders. The defendant was arrested the next day, and text messages linked him to the crime. The defendant was indicted on two counts of first-degree murder, and the State sought the death penalty.A Wake County jury found the defendant guilty of both counts of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to death on March 4, 2019. The defendant appealed, raising several issues, including the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence, jury instructions, and challenges during jury selection.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and addressed each issue raised by the defendant. The court found that the trial court did not err in admitting Rule 404(b) evidence of prior acts against other victims, as it was relevant to show a common scheme or plan. The court also found no error in the jury instructions or the challenges for cause during jury selection. The court concluded that the defendant received a fair trial free from error and affirmed the trial court's judgment and death sentence. View "State v. Gillard" on Justia Law

Deputies from the Caswell County Sheriff’s Office stopped an SUV on suspicion of contraband being thrown over a prison yard wall. The search revealed drugs hidden in footballs, leading to the arrest of the defendant, who was charged with multiple offenses, including possession with intent to sell or distribute drugs and attempting to provide contraband to an inmate. While in custody, the defendant was involved in an altercation and was charged with assaulting a government employee and communicating threats. His court-appointed counsel filed a motion questioning his competency to stand trial, which was granted, but the evaluation was never completed as the defendant posted bond and was released.The Superior Court of Caswell County, presided over by Judge Edwin G. Wilson Jr., did not conduct a competency hearing before the trial. The defendant did not raise the issue of competency at trial, and the jury found him guilty on four of seven charges. The defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by not determining his competency. The Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, found no error, holding that the defendant waived his statutory right to a competency hearing by not asserting it at trial.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court held that the defendant waived his statutory right to a competency hearing by failing to assert it in a timely manner and by acting inconsistently with a purpose to insist upon it. The court distinguished between the waivable statutory right and the non-waivable constitutional right to a competency hearing, concluding that the defendant’s conduct indicated he was competent and ready to proceed with the trial. View "State v. Wilkins" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in District Court, Buncombe County, of driving while impaired (DWI), reckless driving, possession of marijuana, and possession of marijuana paraphernalia. The court found an aggravating factor but balanced it with a mitigating factor, sentencing the defendant to Level IV punishment, which included 120 days of imprisonment (suspended), twelve months of supervised probation, seven days in custody, a $100 fine, and court costs. The defendant appealed to the Superior Court, Buncombe County, where a jury found him guilty of DWI and reckless driving but acquitted him of the other charges. The superior court judge found three aggravating factors and imposed Level III punishment, which included six months of imprisonment (suspended), thirty-six months of supervised probation, three days in custody, a $500 fine, and court costs.The defendant appealed the superior court's judgment, arguing that the trial court erred by finding aggravating factors without a jury. The Court of Appeals agreed, citing Blakely v. Washington, and held that the trial judge's finding of aggravating factors violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The court noted that the General Assembly amended the DWI sentencing statute in 2006 to require that juries, not judges, find aggravating factors. The Court of Appeals majority concluded that resentencing is required whenever a trial judge finds aggravating factors in violation of the statute, regardless of whether the error was harmless.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to apply harmless error review to the trial judge's finding of aggravating factors. The Supreme Court concluded that the finding of aggravating factors by a trial judge contrary to N.C.G.S. § 20-179(a1)(2) does not constitute reversible error if the error was harmless. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for a determination of whether the error was harmless. The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and remanded. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

Petitioner was sentenced to multiple consecutive terms of imprisonment in 2019 for obtaining property by false pretenses. In June 2020, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming his detention was unlawful due to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety's inability to protect him from COVID-19, which he argued violated the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution. The trial court denied his petition.The Superior Court of Wake County summarily denied the petition, citing N.C.G.S. § 17-4(2), which mandates denial of habeas corpus applications when the petitioner is held under a valid final judgment by a competent court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but held that N.C.G.S. § 17-33(2) provided an exception to the rule in § 17-4(2). Despite acknowledging the case was moot due to the petitioner's release, the Court of Appeals applied the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and proceeded to the merits.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case to determine if the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of N.C.G.S. § 17-4(2) requires summary denial of habeas corpus applications for those detained by a final judgment of a competent court. The Court found no conflict between §§ 17-4 and 17-33, as the latter applies only to those detained by civil process, not criminal judgments. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, emphasizing that habeas corpus relief is not available under the circumstances presented by the petitioner. View "State v. Daw" on Justia Law