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., 06/23/2022
E.g., 06/23/2022

The superior court erred in reversing a DMV civil revocation of a driver’s license in a case where the appellee refused to consent to a chemical analysis after being charged with DWI.  An officer responded to a call that a driver had fallen asleep in the drive-through lane of a fast food restaurant and discovered the appellee asleep in the driver’s seat of her vehicle, which was not running and was parked in the parking lot.  After an investigation where the appellee admitted to falling asleep while in the drive-through lane and failed a field sobriety test, she was charged with DWI.  The appellee refused to consent to a blood sample for a chemical analysis, causing the DMV to revoke her license pursuant to G.S. 20-16.2 and sustain the revocation following an administrative hearing.  The superior court reversed the revocation on two grounds, finding that there was a lack of evidence that the appellee was operating a motor vehicle and also finding that the procedures of G.S. 20-16.2 deprived the appellee of due process.  Leaving open the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellee of DWI, the Court of Appeals found that the officer had probable cause to believe that the appellee was operating the vehicle, as required by the statute.  As for the due process issue, the Court of Appeals found that the procedures prescribed by G.S. 20-16.2 do not violate due process merely because DMV hearing officers are DMV employees and there is no attorney at revocation hearings putting on the State’s case.

(1) After accepting a defendant’s guilty plea to DWI, the district court had no authority to arrest judgment. (2) Once the defendant appealed to superior court from the district court’s judgment for a trial de novo, the superior court obtained jurisdiction over the charge and the superior court judge erred by dismissing the charge based on alleged non-jurisdictional defects in the district court proceedings.

Show Table of Contents