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., 09/21/2021
E.g., 09/21/2021
State v. Barnett, 369 N.C. 298 (Dec. 21, 2016)

If supported by appropriate findings as required by the statute, the trial court has authority to enter a “Convicted Sex Offender Permanent No Contact Order” under G.S. 15A-1340.50 prohibiting the defendant from any interaction with a rape victim’s minor children. The defendant was convicted of a number of offenses including attempted second-degree rape. At sentencing the trial court entered a no contact order under the statute, stating that the order included the victim’s minor children. The Court of Appeals vacated the no contact order and remanded for the trial court to remove mention of individuals other than the victim, concluding that the trial court lacked authority to enter a no contact order including persons who were not victims of the sex offense. On the State’s petition for discretionary review, the court agreed that the statute protects victims of sex offense and not third parties and that its catchall provision cannot be read to expand the statute’s reach. However, it held that the statute can authorize protection for the victim from indirect contact by the defendant to the victim’s family or friends when appropriate findings are made. It specified: “By ‘appropriate findings,’ we mean findings indicating that the defendant’s contact with specific individuals would constitute indirect engagement of any of the actions prohibited in subsections (f)(1) through (f)(7) [of the statute].” The court remanded for further proceedings.

The trial court did not err by entering a civil no contact order against the defendant pursuant to G.S. 15A-1340.50 (permanent no contact order prohibiting future contact by convicted sex offender with crime victim). The court held that because the statute imposes a civil remedy, it does not impose an impermissible criminal punishment under article XI, sec. I of the N.C. Constitution. The court also rejected the defendant’s due process argument asserting that the State did not give him sufficient notice of its intent to seek the order. It held that the defendant was not entitled to prior notice by the State that it would seek the no contact order at sentencing. The court held that because the order was civil in nature, it presented no double jeopardy issues. Finally, the court held that the trial judge followed proper procedure in entering the order.

Show Table of Contents