A case involving charges of impaired driving is calendared on today’s district court docket. The defendant was charged more than two years ago; the case has been continued several times pursuant to motions made by the defendant and the State. When this case last appeared on the docket, the State moved for a continuance, and the defendant objected. The district court granted the State’s motion, but ordered that it be the last continuance for the State. Earlier this morning, the State again moved to continue the case. The district court denied the State’s motion, and directed the State to call the case or dismiss the charges. The State refused to take either action. What can the judge do? The judge may dismiss the charges pursuant to his or her inherent authority to manage the docket, a right that North Carolina’s appellate courts have recognized on several occasions and which the court of appeals reaffirmed yesterday in State v. Loftis, __ N.C. App. __ (Nov. 15, 2016). Procedural history. A review of the lengthy and tangled procedural history in Loftis is (unfortunately) central to understanding its outcome. The motion to suppress. The defendant in Loftis filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered after his vehicle was stopped on September 15, 2012 on suspicion of impaired driving. The district court preliminarily indicated its intent to grant the motion. The State appealed to superior court, which affirmed the ruling on March 25, 2015 following a hearing. The superior court subsequently entered an order [...]
Faculty Coordinators
