Two statutes enacted as part of the Motor Vehicle Driver Protection Act of 2006, G.S. 20-38.6 and 20-38.7, significantly altered district court procedures for implied consent offenses committed on or after December 1, 2006. G.S. 20-38.6(a) requires that motions to suppress evidence or dismiss charges in such cases be made pre-trial, except for motions to suppress based upon facts newly discovered during trial and motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence. G.S. 20-38.6(f) prevents a district court judge from immediately entering a final judgment granting a defendant's motion to suppress or dismiss. Instead, a district court judge who determines that such a motion should be granted must issue a written preliminary determination which the state may, pursuant to G.S. 20-38.7(a), appeal to superior court. If the findings of fact are disputed, the superior court determines the matter de novo. The superior court then enters an order remanding the case to district court for entry of a final judgment granting or denying the motion. These procedures were enacted to create a mechanism by which the state could seek review of a district court's decision to suppress evidence or dismiss a case without running afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause. State v. Morgan, 660 S.E.2d 545 (2008), demonstrates nicely the application of the bar against double jeopardy to prevent the state from appealing the dismissal of implied-consent charges if the basis for the decision was insufficiency of the evidence, even where the lack of evidence results from erroneous findings. By requiring pre-trial motions, the [...]
Faculty Coordinators
