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).
Criminal Procedure > Indictment & Pleading Issues > Specific Offenses > Weapons Offenses > Carrying Concealed
No fatal variance between indictment and the evidence in a carrying a concealed weapon case. After an officer discovered that the defendant was carrying knives and metallic knuckles, the defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. The indictment identified the weapon as “a Metallic set of Knuckles.” The trial court instructed the jury concerning “one or more knives.” The court, per curiam and without an opinion, summarily affirmed the ruling of the North Carolina Court of Appeals that the charging language, “a Metallic set of Knuckles,” was unnecessary surplusage, and even assuming the trial court erred in instructing on a weapon not alleged in the charge, no prejudicial error required a reversal where there was evidence that the defendant possessed knives.
In this Chatham County case, the Court of Appeals overturned defendant’s conviction for possession of a firearm at a demonstration, finding that the indictment failed to specify the type of land where the violation took place.
Defendant attended a protest in Hillsborough over the removal of a confederate monument in 2019. During the protest, an officer observed defendant carrying a concealed firearm. Defendant was indicted for violating G.S. 14-277.2, and at trial moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the misdemeanor statement of charges was fatally defective for not specifying the type of location for the offense, specifically the required location of a private health care facility or a public place under control of the state or local government. Defendant’s motion was denied and she was convicted of the misdemeanor.
Reviewing defendant’s appeal, the court agreed with defendant’s argument that her indictment was defective. Although the state moved to amend the location in the statement of charges, and the superior court granted that motion, the Court of Appeals explained that this did not remedy the defect. The court explained that “if a criminal pleading is originally defective with respect to an essential element . . . amendment of the pleading to include the missing element is impermissible, as doing so would change the nature of the offense.” Slip Op. at 8-9. The court looked to analogous statutes and determined that the specific type of location for the offense was an essential element of G.S. 14-277.2, and that the state had failed to specify the location in either the statement of charges or the police report provided with the statement. Instead, the statement and police report simply listed the street address and described the location as “[h]ighway/[r]oad/[a]lley/[s]treet/[s]idewalk[,]” failing to specify the essential element related to the type of location. Id. at 16-17.
Judge Inman concurred only in the result.
When charging carrying a concealed gun under G.S. 14-269, the exception in G.S. 14-269(a1)(2) (having a permit) is a defense not an essential element and need not be alleged in the indictment.
Criminal Procedure > Indictment & Pleading Issues > Specific Offenses > Weapons Offenses > Discharging Weapon Into Property
An indictment charging the defendant with discharging a weapon into an occupied dwelling was not fatally defective. The defendant argued that the indictment was defective because it charged him with discharging a weapon into occupied property causing serious bodily injury, but failed to allege that any injury resulted from the act. The court noted that the defendant’s argument was based on the indictment’s reference to G.S. 14-34.1(c) as the statute violated. However, a statutory reference in an indictment is surplusage and can be disregarded. Moreover, the body of the indictment charges the defendant with the version of the offense for which he was convicted, which does not require serious injury.
The State conceded, and the court held, that the indictment was insufficient to support a conviction for discharging a firearm within an enclosure to incite fear. The indictment improperly alleged that the defendant discharged a firearm “into” an occupied structure; the statute, G.S. 14-34.10, requires that the defendant discharge a firearm “within” an occupied building.
An indictment charging discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling was not defective. The indictment alleged that the defendant “discharge[d] a firearm to wit: a pistol into an apartment 1727 Clemson Court, Kannapolis, NC at the time the apartment was occupied by Michael Fezza” and that the defendant violated G.S. 14-34. The defendant was convicted of discharging a weapon into an occupied dwelling in violation of G.S. 14-34.1. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the term “apartment,” as used in the indictment, was not synonymous with the term “dwelling,” the term used in the statute. On this issue the court stated: “We refuse to subject defendant’s … indictment to hyper technical scrutiny with respect to form.” Next, the court held that although the indictment incorrectly referenced G.S. 14-34 instead of G.S. 14-34.1(b), the error was not a fatal defect.
The trial court erred by instructing the jury on the offense of discharging a firearm into a vehicle that is in operation under G.S. 14-34.1(b) where the indictment failed to allege that the vehicle was in operation. However, because the indictment properly charged discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle under G.S. 14-34.1(a), the court vacated the conviction under G.S. 14-34.1(b) and remanded for entry of judgment under G.S. 14-34.1(a).
Fact that indictment charging discharging a barreled weapon into an occupied dwelling used the term “residence” instead of the statutory term “dwelling” did not result in a lack of notice to the defendant as to the relevant charge.
Criminal Procedure > Indictment & Pleading Issues > Specific Offenses > Weapons Offenses > Felon in Possession
In this Haywood County case, the Supreme Court reversed a unanimous Court of Appeals decision and reinstated defendant’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon.
In April of 2018, defendant was pulled over for driving with a permanently revoked license. During the stop, the officer smelled marijuana; defendant admitted that he had smoked marijuana earlier but none was in the vehicle. Based on the smell and defendant’s admission, the officer decided to search the vehicle, eventually discovering two firearms. Defendant was charged in a single indictment with possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a firearm with an altered or removed serial number, and carrying a concealed weapon. At trial, defendant did not challenge the indictment, and he was ultimately convicted of all three offenses.
On appeal, defendant argued the indictment was fatally flawed, as G.S. 14-415.1(c) requires a separate indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon. The Court of Appeals agreed, vacating defendant’s conviction based on State v. Wilkins, 225 N.C. App. 492 (2013), and holding that the statute unambiguously mandates a separate indictment for the charge.
After granting discretionary review, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals, explaining that “it is well-established that a court should not quash an indictment due to a defect concerning a ‘mere informality’ that does not ‘affect the merits of the case.’” Slip Op. at 6, quoting State v. Brady, 237 N.C. 675 (1953). The court pointed to its decision in State v. Brice, 370 N.C. 244 (2017), which held that failure to obtain a separate indictment required by a habitual offender statute was not a jurisdictional defect and did not render the indictment fatally defective. Applying the same reasoning to the current case, the court explained that “the statute’s separate indictment requirement is not jurisdictional, and failure to comply with the requirement does not render the indictment fatally defective.” Slip Op. at 9. The court explicitly stated that Wilkins was wrongly decided and specifically overruled. Id.
Justice Morgan dissented, and would have upheld the Court of Appeals opinion and the reasoning in Wilkinsfinding that the lack of a separate indictment required by G.S. 14-415.1(c) was a fatal defect. Id. at 11.
In this Cleveland County case, defendant appealed his conviction for aiding and abetting possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing a fatally defective indictment and error in dismissing his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals disagreed on both points and found no error.
Detectives in an unmarked vehicle observed a black pickup truck swerve left of the center line several times while driving, and initiated a traffic stop. Defendant was seated in the passenger seat of the truck when the detectives approached. The driver of the vehicle was known to be a felon by the detectives, and they conducted Terry frisks of defendant and the driver of the truck, finding .32 caliber ammunition in the pocket of the driver. After finding the ammunition, the detectives searched the truck, finding a handgun inside the glovebox and another hidden under the center seat, as well as magazines and ammunition around the vehicle.
Reviewing defendant’s challenge to the indictment, the Court of Appeals first explained the necessary elements of aiding and abetting another person in a crime, and the then the necessary elements of possession of a firearm by a felon. Turning to the text of the indictment, the court found all the necessary elements for the crime, overruling defendant’s argument.
The court next looked to the sufficiency of the evidence, explaining that defendant argued no proof of his intent to commit the crime, even though the elements of the offense do not include an intent requirement, because the indictment referenced his knowledge of the driver’s prior felony conviction. Looking at the evidence in the record, the court found sufficient evidence that defendant provided a firearm to the driver of the vehicle, and that defendant was aware of the driver’s prior felony conviction. This led the court to conclude sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction.
In this case involving possession of a firearm by a felon and carrying a concealed weapon, (1) binding caselaw required that the defendant’s conviction for felon in possession be vacated because the indictment was fatally defective; and (2) the trial court’s ruling on the defendant’s motion to suppress was based on improper findings of fact.
(1) G.S. 14-415.1(c) dictates that an indictment charging a defendant with possession of a firearm by a felon must be separate from any indictment charging other offenses related to or giving rise to the felon in possession charge. Here, a single indictment charged the defendant with felon in possession, possession of a firearm with an altered/removed serial number, and carrying a concealed weapon. Finding itself bound by State v. Wilkins, 225 N.C. App. 492 (2013), the court determined that the State’s failure to obtain a separate indictment for the felon in possession offense rendered the indictment fatally defective and invalid as to that offense.
(2) The court determined that the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s Fourth Amendment motion to suppress a firearm seized from the center console of his vehicle did not contain adequate findings of fact pertaining to a material conflict in the evidence of the accessibility of the firearm and consequently the trial court plainly erred in denying the motion.
An officer initiated a valid traffic stop of the defendant and searched the vehicle for marijuana based on an emanating odor. During the search, the officer felt and saw the handgrip of a pistol around the center console, arrested the defendant for carrying a concealed weapon, and then removed a plastic panel from the console to retrieve the pistol. The defendant challenged the trial court’s finding of fact that “no tools were needed” to remove the panel, a finding bearing upon the accessibility of the pistol for purposes of determining whether the officer had probable cause for the independent search of the console premised on the offense of carrying a concealed weapon. Reviewing the testimony, the court of appeals found that the finding that “no tools were needed” was not supported by the testimony at the suppression hearing and that the trial court otherwise failed to make necessary findings as to the accessibility of the pistol. Because the accessibility issue was not resolved by adequate findings, the trial court’s conclusion of law regarding probable cause was not supported and it could not properly rule on the defendant’s motion to suppress. The court remanded the case for the trial court to make further findings on the issue.
An indictment for felon in possession of a firearm was fatally defective because the charge was included as a separate count in a single indictment also charging the defendant with assault with a deadly weapon. G.S. 14-415.1(c) requires that possession of a firearm by a felon be charged in a separate indictment from other related charges.
Felon in possession indictment that listed the wrong date for the prior felony conviction was not defective, nor was there a fatal variance on this basis (indictment alleged prior conviction date of December 8, 1992 but judgment for the prior conviction that was introduced at trial was dated December 18, 1992).
Criminal Procedure > Indictment & Pleading Issues > Specific Offenses > Weapons Offenses > Possession of Weapons on School Grounds
In a carrying a weapon on educational property case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that there was a fatal variance between the indictment, which alleged that the defendant possessed weapons at “High Point University, located at 833 Montlieu Avenue” and the evidence, which showed that the conduct occurred at “1911 North Centennial Street.” The court concluded: “The indictment charged all of the essential elements of the crime: that Defendant knowingly possessed a Ruger pistol on educational property—High Point University. We agree with the State that the physical address for High Point University listed in the indictment is surplusage because the indictment already described the ‘educational property’ element as ‘High Point University.’”
A juvenile petition sufficiently alleged that the juvenile was delinquent for possession of a weapon on school grounds in violation of G.S. 14-269.2(d). The petition alleged that the juvenile possessed an “other weapon,” specified as a “steel link from chain.” The evidence showed that the juvenile possessed a 3/8-inch thick steel bar forming a C-shaped “link” about 3 inches long and 1½ inches wide. The link closed with a ½-inch thick bolt and the object weighed at least 1 pound. The juvenile could slide his fingers through the link so that 3-4 inches of the bar could be held securely across his knuckles and used as a weapon. Finding the petition sufficient the court stated: “the item . . . is sufficiently equivalent to what the General Assembly intended to be recognized as ‘metallic knuckles’ under [the statute].”