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., 12/05/2021
E.g., 12/05/2021

In a case arising out of false information submitted by the defendant in connection with his work as a bail bondsman, and involving charges of, among other things, unlawful access of a government computer and obtaining property by false pretenses, the defendant did not make out a prima facie case for selective prosecution. To demonstrate selective prosecution, a defendant must first make a prima facie showing that he has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not; and second, after doing so, he must demonstrate that the discriminatory selection for prosecution was invidious and done in bad faith in that it rests upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights. Here, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that certain testimony at trial established “the total lack of prosecutions of bail bondsmen . . . for intentionally filing false reports.”

State v. Pope, 213 N.C. App. 413 (July 19, 2011)

The trial court erred by dismissing charges on grounds of selective prosecution. The defendant, a public works director, was charged with larceny by employee in connection with selling “white goods” and retaining the proceeds. To demonstrate selective prosecution, the defendant must: (1) make a prima facie showing that he or she has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated and committing the same acts have not; and (2) demonstrate that the discriminatory selection for prosecution was invidious and done in bad faith in that it rests upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent the exercise of constitutional rights. The trial court erroneously concluded that other similarly situated employees were not charged. The defendant was the public works director while the others were his subordinates; none were in a position to oversee wholesale theft from the town; and the defendant alone received the money from the sales, divided up the money, failed to remit it to the town, and kept a portion for himself while distributing the remainder to other employees. The court also rejected the defendant’s assertion that his prosecution resulted from support of certain town political candidates, concluding that he failed to demonstrate that the prosecution, as opposed to the initial investigation, was politically motivated. While the initial investigation may or may not have been politically motivated, local officials subsequently brought in the SBI to investigate and it was the SBI’s investigation which resulted in defendant being charged and prosecuted by the district attorney, who is not an agent of local government.

Show Table of Contents