Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
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).
In this Beaufort County case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the State’s appeal of a district court order suppressing evidence gathered during a DWI traffic stop. The Supreme Court found that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant and reversed the suppression order, remanding for further proceedings.
In April of 2020, a State Highway Patrol officer stopped defendant after observing him weaving across the centerline. The officer noticed defendant smelled of alcohol and had glassy eyes, and defendant admitted to having a couple of beers earlier in the day. Afte administering a preliminary breath test (PBT) and horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, the officer arrested defendant for DWI. When the matter came to district court, defendant moved to suppress the results of the stop. The trial court found that the officer did not have probable cause to suspect defendant of DWI before his arrest, and also that the officer failed to ensure defendant had nothing in his mouth before the PBT, excluding the results. After the trial court’s preliminary ruling, the State challenged the determination in superior court under G.S. 20-38.7(a), but that court affirmed the trial court’s determination and directed it to enter a final order. The Court of Appeals denied the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
Taking up the State’s petition, the Supreme Court first established its jurisdiction and the lack of other appeal routes, explaining that the final suppression order from district court was interlocutory, and the statute governing appeals from district court, G.S. 15A-1432, provided no other route for the State to appeal because there was no dismissal or motion for new trial. Since there was no vehicle for appeal and the State “would otherwise be marooned in an ‘interlocutory no-man’s land,’” Rule of Appellate Procedure 21 allowed the State to petition the Court for certiorari. Slip Op. at 8. This also meant that the Court was considering the district court’s final order, as there was no Court of Appeals opinion on the matter.
Moving to the suppression order, the Court explained the applicable standard for probable cause in DWI arrests, and noted the extensive facts in the record supporting the officer’s suspicion of defendant, including “erratic weaving; the smell of alcohol on his breath and in his truck; his red, glassy eyes; his admission to drinking; and his performance on the HGN test.” Id. at 23. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Court concluded that “a reasonable officer would find a ‘substantial basis’ to arrest in this case,” and defendant’s arrest did not offend the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 22.
For reasons discussed in the court’s opinion, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal of the defendant’s motion to suppress and that the superior court erred when it remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss.
In this DWI case, the superior court properly dismissed the State’s notice of appeal from a district court ruling granting the defendant’s motion to suppress where the State’s notice of appeal failed to specify any basis for the appeal. Although such a notice may be sufficient for an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the State is required to specify the basis for its appeal to superior court.
The superior court erred by denying the State a de novo hearing from the district court’s preliminary determination that the defendant’s motion to suppress should be granted. At issue was whether G.S. 20-38.7(a) “requires more than a general objection by the State to the district court judge’s findings of fact or an assertion of new facts or evidence in order to demonstrate a ‘dispute about the findings of fact.’” The court held: “Neither the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-38.7(a) nor § 15A-1432(b) requires the State to set forth the specific findings of fact to which it objects in its notice of appeal to superior court.”
In this DWI case where the district court judge entered a preliminary determination that the results of the defendant’s blood alcohol test should be suppressed but the superior court reversed the preliminary determination on the State’s appeal and remanded to the district court for further proceedings, the defendant had no right of appeal to the court of appeals. Because the district court did not enter a final judgment pursuant to G.S. 20-38.6(f) denying the motion to suppress, the defendant could not seek review of the ruling on that motion. Although the court found it had authority to grant certiorari, it declined to do so.