Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

About

This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.

Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.

Instructions

Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).

E.g., 12/04/2021
E.g., 12/04/2021

(1) In this sexual assault case the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that even if the defendant had clearly and unequivocally asked to proceed pro se, the record did not establish that the defendant’s waiver of counsel complied with G.S. 15A-1242. The defendant was indicted on multiple sexual assault charges. He later was found to be indigent and Timothy Emry was appointed as counsel. Emry later moved to withdraw claiming that he and the defendant were at an impasse regarding representation. He asserted that the defendant was unwilling to discuss the case with him and the defendant was upset with Emry to asking him to sign a form acknowledging that he understood a plea offer and the consequences of taking or rejecting the plea. At a January hearing on the motion, the State asserted that if Emry was allowed to withdraw, the defendant would be on his fourth lawyer. Emry however clarified that this was inaccurate. The trial court told the defendant that he could have Emry continue as counsel, have the trial court find that the defendant had forfeited his right to counsel, or hire his own lawyer. The defendant opted to proceed pro se and the trial court appointed Emry as standby counsel. A waiver of counsel form was signed and completed. However, on the form the defendant only indicated that he waived his right to assigned counsel, not his right to all assistance of counsel. The case came to trial before a different judge. Although the trial court engaged in a colloquy with the defendant about counsel, the transcript of this event was indecipherable in parts. The defendant was convicted and appealed. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by requiring him to proceed to trial pro se when he did not clearly and unequivocally elect to do so. Although the defendant did say that he wished to represent himself, he only did so after being faced with no other option than to continue with Emry’s representation. The court noted: “This case is a good example of the confusion that can occur when the record lacks a clear indication that a defendant wishes to proceed without representation.” Here, even assuming that the defendant did clearly and unequivocally assert his wish to proceed pro se, he still would be entitled to a new trial because the waiver was not knowing and voluntary as required by G.S. 15A-1242. At the January hearing, after explaining the defendant’s options to him the court asked that the defendant “be sworn to [his] waiver.” At this point the clerk simply asked the defendant if he solemnly swore that he had a right to a lawyer and that he waived that right. This colloquy did not meet the requirements of the statute. The court stated: “The fact that defendant signed a written waiver acknowledging that he was waiving his right to assigned counsel does not relieve the trial court of its duty to go through the requisite inquiry with defendant to determine whether he understood the consequences of his waiver.” Additionally, the written waiver form indicates that the defendant elected only to waive the right to assigned counsel, not the right to all assistance of counsel. With respect to the colloquy that occurred at trial, defects in the transcript made it unclear what the defendant understood about the role of standby counsel. In any event, “simply informing defendant about standby counsel’s role is not an adequate substitute for complying with [the statute].” Additionally, there is no indication that the trial court inquired into whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and permissible punishments as required by the statute. The court rejected the State’s suggestion that the fact that Emry had informed the defendant about the charges could substitute for the trial court’s obligation to ensure that the defendant understood the nature of the charges and the potential punishments before accepting a waiver of counsel.

(2) The defendant did not engage in conduct warranting forfeiture of the right to counsel. Although the state and the trial court hinted that the defendant was intentionally delaying the trial and that he would be on his fourth attorney after counsel was dismissed, the record indicates that this was an inaccurate characterization of the facts. As explained by Emry, although other attorneys had been listed as the defendant’s counsel at various points early in the proceedings, the defendant received substantial assistance only from Emry. Additionally, nothing in the transcript indicates any type of “flagrant” tactics that would constitute extreme misconduct warranting forfeiture. Specifically, there is no indication that the defendant sought other delays of his trial or that he engaged in any inappropriate behavior either in court or with counsel.

The trial court erred by requiring the defendant to proceed to trial pro se. On February 7, 2013, the defendant was determined to be indigent and counsel was appointed. On May 30, 2014, the defendant waived his right to assigned counsel, indicating that he wished to hire a private lawyer, Mr. Parker. Between May 2014 and May 2015 the trial was continued several times to enable the defendant to obtain funds to pay Parker. On May 11, 2015, Parker informed the court that the defendant had not retained him and that if the court would not agree to continue the case, Parker would move to withdraw. Although the defendant was employed when he first indicated his desire to hire Parker, he subsequently lost his job and needed time to obtain funds to pay counsel. The trial court continued the case for two months, to give the defendant more time to obtain funds to pay Parker. On June 29, 2015, Parker filed a motion to withdraw for failure to pay. On July 6, 2015, after the trial court allowed Parker to withdraw, the defendant asked for new counsel. The trial court declined this request, the case proceeded pro se, and the defendant was convicted. The court found that the trial court’s ruling requiring the defendant to proceed pro se was based in part on the ADA’s false representation that at the May 11, 2015 hearing the defendant was asked if he wanted counsel appointed, was warned that the case would be tried in July regardless of whether he were able to hire Parker, and was explicitly warned that if he had not retained counsel by July he would be forced to proceed to trial pro se. The court concluded: “None of these representations are accurate.” Thus, the court held that the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for appointed counsel and its ruling that the defendant had waived the right to appointed counsel were not supported by competent evidence.

The trial court erred by requiring the defendant to proceed pro se. After the defendant was indicted but before the trial date, the defendant signed a waiver of the right to assigned counsel and hired his own lawyer. When the case came on for trial, defense counsel moved to withdraw, stating that the defendant had been rude to him and no longer desired his representation. The defendant agreed and indicated that he intended to hire a different, specifically named lawyer. The trial court allowed defense counsel to withdraw and informed the defendant that he had a right to fire his lawyer but that the trial would proceed that week, after the trial court disposed of other matters. The defendant then unsuccessfully sought a continuance. When the defendant’s case came on for trial two days later, the defendant informed the court that the lawyer he had intended to hire wouldn’t take his case. When the defendant raised questions about being required to proceed pro se, the court indicated that he had previously waived his right to court-appointed counsel. The trial began, with the defendant representing himself. The court held that the trial court’s actions violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The defendant never asked to proceed pro se; although he waived his right to court-appointed counsel, he never indicated that he intended to proceed to trial without the assistance of any counsel. Next, the court held that the defendant had not engaged in the type of severe misconduct that would justify forfeiture of the right to counsel. Among other things, the court noted that the defendant did not fire multiple attorneys or repeatedly delay the trial. The court concluded:

[D]efendant’s request for a continuance in order to hire a different attorney, even if motivated by a wish to postpone his trial, was nowhere close to the “serious misconduct” that has previously been held to constitute forfeiture of counsel. In reaching this decision, we find it very significant that defendant was not warned or informed that if he chose to discharge his counsel but was unable to hire another attorney, he would then be forced to proceed pro se. Nor was defendant warned of the consequences of such a decision. We need not decide, and express no opinion on, the issue of whether certain conduct by a defendant might justify an immediate forfeiture of counsel without any preliminary warning to the defendant. On the facts of this case, however, we hold that defendant was entitled, at a minimum, to be informed by the trial court that defendant’s failure to hire new counsel might result in defendant’s being required to represent himself, and to be advised of the consequences of self-representation.

Show Table of Contents