Last July, former Wake County district court judge Kristin Ruth pled guilty to willfully failing to discharge the duties of her office, a misdemeanor offense, for her role in signing ex parte orders prepared by a defense attorney that, among other things, ordered that certain conviction dates in DWI cases be entered “nunc pro tunc” to earlier dates. The case attracted a lot of attention in the Triangle and was the subject of several news reports, including this News and Observer story contrasting the widespread use of nunc pro tunc orders with the limited circumstances in which the appellate courts have authorized their use. The story quoted two appellate court opinions as well as my colleagues, Michael Crowell and Jim Drennan, for the proposition that nunc pro tunc orders are authorized to correct errors—not to backdate actions that were not earlier taken in a given case. A recent court of appeals case, Whitworth v. Whitworth, No. COA12-24 (Sept. 4, 2012), again emphasizes the limited circumstances in which entry of an order nunc pro tunc is permissible. Because Whitworth is a civil case arising from an equitable distribution action, it might have escaped the attention of the criminal law bar. Given, however, that the doctrine of nunc pro tunc has the same application in civil and criminal cases, I thought Whitworth might bear mentioning in this criminal law forum. The Whitworth litigation began with a complaint filed by Marie Whitworth seeking equitable distribution following her separation from her husband, Leon, and alleging [...]
Faculty Coordinators
