Summe r 2018 Crimina l L a w We b ina r JOHN RU BI N, SHE A DE - - PDF document
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
JOHN RU BI N, SHE A DE NNI NG & PHI L DI XON U NC SCHOOL OF GOVE RNME NT JU NE 2018
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
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
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.”
~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
Do wne y (RS ) Re e d (NO RS ) Bo wman (NO RS )
Sig nific a nt Ne rvo usne ss Va g ue Answe rs Air fre she ne r, pre pa id c e ll Ca r no t re g iste re d to D. 2:00 pm Crimina l Histo ry So me Ne rvo usne ss Co nsiste nt a nswe rs Air fre she ne r Re nta l Ca r 8:00 a m Crimina l Histo ry So me Ne rvo usne ss Va g ue Answe rs F a st fo o d, e ne rg y drinks, me ssy c a r Ne w c a r b ut no jo b 3:40 a m
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
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 .”
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
Priva te se a rc h do c trine
F
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?
z
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
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?
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 ?
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
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
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
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
?
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
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
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
Admissib le
De fe nda nt’ s o ut-o f-c o urt sta te me nt tha t c o ntro lle d sub sta nc e in he r po sse ssio n wa s me th (Bridg e s, p. 15)
Sta te ’ s e xpe rt te stimo ny a b o ut de la ye d disc lo sure b y c hildre n o f se xua l a b use (Sho re , p. 28)
I na dmissib le
De fe nda nt’ s te stimo ny tha t he suffe re d fro m se ve ra l me nta l diso rde rs, suc h a s ADHD (So lo mo n, p. 32)
De fe nse e xpe rt’ s te stimo ny a b o ut fig ht o r flig ht re a c tio ns in se lf- de fe nse c a se (T ho ma s, p. 28)
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
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
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
L
a y ID o f pe rso n in surve illa nc e vide o b y
D c ha ng e d a ppe a ra nc e
b e fo re tria l
Offic e r wa s fa milia r with him,
a ltho ug h didn’ t pe rso na lly inte ra c t with him a nd wa sn’ t pre se nt a t time o f vide o
Ge ne ra l Rule:
Ina dmissib le if witne ss is in no b e tte r po sitio n tha n jury to ID; a dmissib le if b a se d o n kno wle dg e a nd pe rc e ptio n a nd he lpful to the jury
F a c tor s:
1) Witne ss fa milia rity with D in g e ne ra l 2) Witne ss fa milia rity with D a t time o f vide o 3) Whe the r D disg uise d a t time o f vide o 4) Whe the r D a lte re d a ppe a ra nc e b e twe e n o ffe nse a nd tria l 5) Qua lity/ c o mple te ne ss o f ima g e s
Sta te v. Sa ntifo rt (NC App), p. 35 NC Sta te Ba r
Offic e rs’ Applic a tions for Inve stig a tive Orde rs
a nd the Una uthorize d Pra c tic e of L a w
(Ma y 7, 2018)
[Ne w c ha rg e s] wo uld b e pre ve nte d . . . if je o pa rdy ha d a tta c he d whe n the first c ha rg e s we re dismisse d.
Sta te ’ s E le c tio n Rule :
Whe n a pro se c uto r a nno unc e s his o r he r inte nt to se e k c o nvic tio n o nly fo r so me o f the o ffe nse s c ha rg e d in the indic tme nt o r o nly fo r le sse r inc lude d o ffe nse s, tha t a nno unc e me nt b e c o me s b inding o n the Sta te a nd is ta nta mo unt to a n a c q uitta l o f c ha rg e s c o nta ine d in the indic tme nt b ut no t pro se c ute d a t tria l o nc e je o pa rdy a tta c he s.
T he re st o f the c o untry c a tc he s up with NC a nd Harbiso n
Po st-a rre st “sile nc e ” b y de fe nda nt wa s pro pe r
sub je c t o f impe a c hme nt a nd c lo sing a rg ume nt whe re de fe nda nt to ld his sto ry fo r the first time a t tria l a fte r te lling o ffic e rs he didn’ t re me mb e r the nig ht in q ue stio n b e fo re tria l
An a lle g a tio n tha t the me rc ha nt is a le g a l e ntity
c a pa b le o f o wing pro pe rty is suffic ie nt.
Se e a lso S
tate v. Mo stafavi (NCSC), p. 24
I
ndic tme nt c ha rg ing de fe nda nt with o b ta ining pro pe rty b y fa lse pre te nse s suffic ie ntly ide ntifie d tra nsa c tio ns a t issue e ve n tho ug h it did no t spe c ify a mo unt o f $$ o b ta ine d
“Ma nufa c ture ” me a ns the pro duc tio n,
pre pa ra tio n, pro pa g a tio n, c o mpo unding , c o nve rsio n, o r pro c e ssing o f a c o ntro lle d sub sta nc e b y a ny me a ns . . .
e xc e pt tha t this te rm do e s no t inc lude the
pre pa ra tio n o r c o mpo unding o f a c o ntro lle d sub sta nc e b y a n individua l fo r his o wn use . . . .”
L
S v. Crump (NC App), p. 40, 37 Co urt a pplie s fe lo ny disq ua lific a tio n lite ra lly
T he Statutor y F e lony Disqualific ation for Se lf-De fe nse (June 7, 2016) A L
“F e lonious” De fe ndants Who Ac t in Se lf-De fe nse (Ma y 1, 2018)
S v. L
e e (NCSC), p. 43
De fe nda nt ha s rig ht to sta nd g ro und in a ny pla c e whe re “rig ht to b e “ Se lf-De fe nse and Re tr e at fr
e the De fe ndant Has a “L awful Rig ht to Be ” (Aug . 29, 2017)
Ne c e ssity De fe nda nt to o k re a so na b le a c tio n T
a pe rso n
No o the r a c c e pta b le c ho ic e
wa s a va ila b le Dure ss
Ac tio ns c a use d b y re a so na b le
fe a r tha t de fe nda nt wo uld suffe r
I
mme dia te de a th o r se rio us b o dily injury
I
f the de fe nda nt ha d no t so a c te d
De fe nda nt ha d no re a so na b le
ille g a l a c t witho ut undue e xpo sure to de a th o r se rio us b o dily ha rm
De fe nda nt punc he d b a dde st [ma n] in the b a r Ma n pulls o ut g un De fe nda nt a nd wife le a ve in g o lf c a rt, drive do wn U.S. 1 T
ria l c o urt: No e vide nc e o f a c tua l fe a r, so I’ m no t g iving instruc tio n
Ct o f a ppe a ls: Ne w tria l. E
vide nc e suppo rte d b o th de fe nse s.
Jury c o uld ha ve c o nc lude d tha t Displa y o f g un pre se nte d imme dia te thre a t o f de a th o r se rio us b o dily injury Driving g o lf c a rt o n hig hwa y wa s re a so na b le a c tio n to pro te c t life , limb , he a lth Mille r ha d no o the r a c c e pta b le c ho ic e to e sc a pe da ng e r Also , tha t de fe nda nt wa s a fra id fo r his life o r the live s o f o the rs pre se nt a nd tha t this fe a r wa s o b je c tive ly re a so na b le
[da rn]
K
no c k a nd T a lk a t b a c k do o r vio la te d the 4th Ame ndme nt
F
L
a nd S tate v. Huddy fro m COA la st ye a r
Only in “unusua l c irc umsta nc e s” will a b a c k o r side
do o r b e o k
E
rro r to o rde r re c usa l o f e ntire DA’ s o ffic e sua spo nte witho ut no tic e to Sta te
Sta nda rd: Ac tua l Co nflic t No rma lly inc lude s o nly spe c ific
DA with the c o nflic t
Sta te v. F
ulle r (NC App), p. 10 Se a rc h inc ide nt to a rre st tha t invo lve d vie wing the de fe nda nt’ s g e nita l a re a re a so na b le unde r the c irc umsta nc e s; no t a ro a dside strip se a rc h
Co ntra st with Sims v. L
a b o witz (4th Cir), p. 8 Se xua l se a rc h o f mino r inva lid e ve n with se a rc h wa rra nt
Wa ive r o f jury
tria l whe re b e nc h tria l una va ila b le = struc tura l e rro r
Ne w T
ria l