8/8/2018 Summe r 2018 Crimina l L a w We b ina r JOHN RU BI N, SHE A DE NNI NG & PHI L DI XON U NC SCHOOL OF GOVE RNME NT JU NE 2018 ROADMAP Sto ps a nd Se a rc he s Crime s DWI E xpe rts a nd E vide nc e Crimina l Pro c e dure Ple a ding s De fe nse s ST OP! 1
8/8/2018 Sta te v. Do wne y (NCSC), p. 3 Sto p wa s fo r tra ffic vio la tio n Offic e r e xte nde d sto p o n b a sis o f ya da , ya da , ya da * Co urt o f Appe a ls, a ff’ d b y NC Supre me Co urt, finds re a so na b le suspic io n to e xte nd sto p *ne rvo usne ss, la c k o f e ye c o nta c t, a ir fre she ne r, pre pa id c e ll pho ne , c a r re g istra tio n to a no the r pe rso n, c rimina l histo ry Sta te v. Re e d, (NC App), p. 4 De fe nda nt re ma ine d unla wfully se ize d in pa tro l c a r a fte r wa rning tic ke t wa s issue d Co ntinue d de te ntio n wa s no t c o nse nsua l o r suppo rte d b y RS Do g , do g fo o d, a nd de tritus we re “le g a l a c tivity c o nsiste nt with la wful tra ve l.” U.S. v. Bo wma n (4 th Cir), p. 5 ~4a m spe e ding / we a ving sto p “Ok” in re spo nse to o ffic e r’ s c o mme nt to “Ha ng tig ht” wa s no t vo lunta ry c o nse nt unde r the to ta lity o f c irc umsta nc e s F a c to rs a ll c o nsiste nt with la wful tra ve l a nd didn’ t suppo rt e xte nsio n o f sto p 2
8/8/2018 Ma king Se nse o f Ro drig ue z Ca se s? Do wne y (RS ) Re e d (NO RS ) Bo wman (NO RS ) So me Ne rvo usne ss Sig nific a nt Ne rvo usne ss So me Ne rvo usne ss Va g ue Answe rs Co nsiste nt a nswe rs Va g ue Answe rs Air fre she ne r Air fre she ne r, pre pa id c e ll F a st fo o d, e ne rg y drinks, me ssy c a r Ca r no t re g iste re d to D. Re nta l Ca r Ne w c a r b ut no jo b 2:00 pm 8:00 a m 3:40 a m Crimina l Histo ry Crimina l Histo ry Byrd v. U.S. (USSC), Supp. p. 3 Una utho rize d drive r o f re nta l c a r in la wful po ss. re ta ins priva c y e xpe c ta tio n (a nd ha s sta nding ) F ra ud in o b ta ining ve hic le c a n tip sc a le s to tre a t una utho rize d drive r a s c a r thie f Po ssib le a pplic a tio ns? Se a rc he s 3
8/8/2018 Sta te v. L e wis (NC App), p. 7 PC to se a rc h c a rs in drive wa y isn’ t pc to se a rc h ho use whe re pa rke d Affida vit is wha t ma tte rs, no t he a ring te stimo ny “[W]e a c kno wle dg e tha t the wa rra nt a pplic a tio n is missing a ke y fa c t kno wn to la w e nfo rc e me nt tha t, if inc lude d, wo uld ha ve ma de this a fa r e a sie r c a se .” Co llins v. Virg inia (USSC), Supp. p. 2 U.S. Supre me Co urt ho lds a uto mo b ile e xc e ptio n do e s no t a pply to se a rc he s o f a ve hic le within the c urtila g e o f a re side nc e Ope n c a rpo rt ne xt to ho me pro pe rly c o nside re d c urtila g e a nd wa rra nt ne e de d to se a rc h the re Sta te v. T e rre ll (NC App), p. 9 Priva te se a rc h do c trine F o urth Ame ndme nt no t implic a te d b y g o v.’ s inspe c tio n o f priva te e ffe c ts whe n tha t inspe c tio n fo llo ws priva te pa rty’ s se a rc h a nd do e s no t e xc e e d its sc o pe Why? Priva te pa rty’ s se a rc h frustra te s re a so na b le e xpe c ta tio n o f priva c y Unite d Sta te s v. Ja c o b so n, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) Ho w do e s this a pply to a fla sh drive turne d o ve r to the g o ve rnme nt? 4
8/8/2018 Sta te v. T e rre ll (NC App), p. 9 z Sta te v. T e rre ll (NC App), p. 9 Sta te v. Gra dy, Supp. p. 10 Sa te llite -b a se d mo nito ring he ld a n unre a so na b le se a rc h fo r Gra dy No sho wing o f e ffic a c y o f pro g ra m No sho wing o f ho w pro g ra m a dva nc e s sta te ’ s inte re st in mo nito ring No sho wing ho w D’ s priva c y a ffe c te d 5
8/8/2018 Crime s S v. Dite nha fe r* (NC App), p. 14, 18 Ob struc tio n o f justic e , p. 14 Wa s e nc o ura g ing da ug hte r to re c a nt o b struc tio n? Wa s de nying la w e nfo rc e me nt a nd pro te c tive se rvic e s a c c e ss to da ug hte r o b struc tio n? Ac c e sso ry a fte r fa c t to fe lo ny, p. 18 Princ ipa l c o mmitte d fe lo ny D ha d kno wle dg e tha t princ ipa l c o mmitte d the fe lo ny D pro vide d pe rso na l a ssista nc e to princ ipa l * Die -te n-ha y-fe r o r De e -te n-ha -fe r? Sta te v. Bridg e s (NC App), p. 15 Ne w e xc e ptio n to the Ward Rule De fe nda nt’ s o ut-o f-c o urt a dmissio n to na ture o f sub sta nc e wa s suffic ie nt to survive mo tio n to dismiss Wo uld a n o b je c tio n ha ve ma de a diffe re nc e ? 6
8/8/2018 Sta te v. Gre e n (NC App), p. 21 De fe nda nt wa s e ntitle d to instruc tio n tha t DWL R re q uire d kno wle dg e o f re vo c a tio n D te stifie d tha t he ne ve r re c e ive d re vo c a tio n le tte rs Sa id his da d (sa me na me a nd a ddre ss) mig ht ha ve re c e ive d a nd o pe ne d the m Ho w a Misde me a no r T urns into a F e lo ny Sta te v. Alle n (NC App), p. 17, 31 Misde me a no r sho plifting / la rc e ny + misde me a no r tre spa ss = fe lo ny b re a king a nd e nte ring Sta te v. Ho we ll (NCSC), p. 18 Cla ss 1 misde me a no r po sse ssio n o f ma rijua na + prio r c o ntro lle d sub sta nc e vio la tio n = fe lo ny F e lo ny po sse ssio n + prio r fe lo nie s = ha b itua l fe lo ny DWI 7
8/8/2018 Sta te v. E ldre d (NC App), p. 19 Sc uffe d up Je e p Che ro ke e o n side o f hig hwa y a ppe a rs to ha ve run o ff the ro a d a nd hit ro c k e mb a nkme nt De fe nda nt, who o wns c a r, fo und 2 mile s a wa y wa lking o n hig hwa y De fe nda nt is twitc hing , unste a dy o n fe e t, sa ys he is “smo ke d up o n me th” De fe nda nt q ue stio ne d a t ho spita l, sa ys he wa s invo lve d in a wre c k a c o uple o f ho urs a g o , sa ys he is o n me th Suffic ie nt e vide nc e o f DWI ? Sta te v. E ldre d (NC App), p. 19 No , sa ys c o urt o f a ppe a ls Sta te fa ile d to pre se nt suffic ie nt e vide nc e tha t E ldre d wa s impa ire d while he wa s driving No e vide nc e o f whe n o ffic e r fo und E ldre d Offic e r did no t de te rmine whe the r impa irme nt wa s fro m wre c k o r sub sta nc e Inte rvie wing o ffic e r did no t le a rn whe n o r whe re E ldre d c o nsume d me th o r a ny o the r sub sta nc e Sta te did no t de mo nstra te whe n c a r ra n o ff ro a d No witne ss sa w E ldre d driving Sta te v. Hine s (NC App), p. 39 De fe nda nt’ s c a r wa s no se -do wn in ditc h De fe nda nt sme lle d o f a lc o ho l a nd c o uld no t ma inta in b a la nc e De fe nda nt’ s missing sho e wa s in drive r’ s side flo o rb o a rd De fe nda nt sa id he hit the ditc h whe n he ra n a sto p sig n g o ing 60 mph D ha d c ut o n fo re he a d Pa sse d o ut in b e d o f truc k during inve stig a tio n BAC: .33 8
8/8/2018 Sta te v. Hine s (NC App), p. 39 Suffic ie nt inde pe nde nt c o rro b o ra ting e vide nc e tha t D ha d b e e n driving the wre c ke d ve hic le while impa ire d Ca r in ditc h Sho e No o ne e lse the re who c o uld ha ve b e e n driving D injure d Wre c k une xpla ine d And suffic ie nt inde pe nde nt e vide nc e o f impa irme nt E xpe rts & E vide nc e Opinio n T e stimo ny (NC App) Admissib le I na dmissib le De fe nda nt’ s o ut-o f-c o urt De fe nda nt’ s te stimo ny tha t he sta te me nt tha t c o ntro lle d suffe re d fro m se ve ra l me nta l sub sta nc e in he r po sse ssio n diso rde rs, suc h a s ADHD wa s me th (Bridg e s, p. 15) (So lo mo n, p. 32) Sta te ’ s e xpe rt te stimo ny a b o ut De fe nse e xpe rt’ s te stimo ny a b o ut de la ye d disc lo sure b y c hildre n o f fig ht o r flig ht re a c tio ns in se lf- se xua l a b use (Sho re , p. 28) de fe nse c a se (T ho ma s, p. 28) 9
8/8/2018 Sta te v. F inc he r (NC App), p. 27 No fo unda tio n e sta b lishing the re lia b ility o f a Drug Re c o g nitio n E xpe rt e xa mina tio n is re q uire d fo r DRE o ffic e r to te stify a b o ut c o nc lusio ns Why? Rule 702(a 1)(2) e limina te s ne e d fo r Da ub e rt re lia b lilty re vie w Sta te v. Ja c o b s (NCSC), p. 31 Supre me Co urt re ve rse s una nimo us COA o n Rule 412 issue De fe nse e xpe rt te stimo ny sho we d a lle g e d vic tim ha d 2 se xua lly tra nsmitte d infe c tio ns tha t the de fe nda nt did no t E xpe rt te stimo ny fe ll within ra pe shie ld e xc e ptio ns a nd sho uld ha ve b e e n a llo we d Crimina l Pro c e dure 10
Recommend
More recommend
