Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

Smith's Criminal Case Compendium


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.


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., 07/19/2024
E.g., 07/19/2024

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a four-year-old child sexual assault victim was competent to testify. The child was 2½ years old at the time the incident occurred. At trial, the child was non-responsive to some questions and gave contradictory responses to others.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding an elderly victim to be competent. The witness correctly testified to his full name and birth date and where he lived. He was able to correctly identify family members, the defendant, and his own signature. He understood that he was at the courthouse, that a trial was occurring, and his duty to tell the truth. His testimony also demonstrated his ability to tell the truth from a lie. Noting that some of his answers were ambiguous and vague and that he was unable to answer some questions, the court concluded that it would not be unusual for an elderly person to have some difficulty in responding coherently to all of the voir dire questions.

In this Chatham County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree forcible rape, first-degree kidnapping, sexual battery, and assault of a female, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial. The Court of Appeals found no error. 

In April of 2019, defendant came to the victim’s house and offered her drugs and alcohol. The two consumed the drugs and defendant eventually forced himself upon the victim, forcibly raping her while punching her repeatedly. When defendant came to trial, the victim took the stand to testify about the events. During her testimony, defense counsel took issue with the victim’s “streamed sort of consciousness” testimony, and the State requested to be allowed more leading questions on direct examination. Slip Op. at 2. The trial court allowed voir dire to determine whether the victim’s mental health issues necessitated more leading questions, and during this voir dire it was revealed that the victim had either bipolar or borderline personality disorder, PTSD, and a substance use or abuse disorder, and the victim had recently relapsed and was released from rehab the week before her testimony. She was also on medication for certain medical conditions. On the fourth day of the trial, the State informed the trial court that the bailiffs believed the victim had consumed alcohol that morning, and the victim took a portable breathalyzer, which resulted in a 0.0 BAC reading. However, the victim admitted she had “a sip of vodka” because of her nerves. 3. Later on recross, “[the victim] disclosed to the jury that she took a shot of alcohol that was in her purse upon arriving to the courthouse.” Id. at 4. She also admitted to having a beer at lunch the day before. 

Considering defendant’s argument, the Court of Appeals noted “given the trial court’s knowledge and consideration of the result of the breathalyzer test, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion.” Id. at 7. Instead, the trial court took “immediate and reasonable steps” to address the victim’s behavior, and the trial court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion for a mistrial was a reasonable decision. Id. at 8.

At the defendant’s trial for drug charges, a witness who purchased drugs from the defendant testified for the State. After the witness testified, the trial court expressed concern that the witness appeared to be impaired by drugs or alcohol. The court ordered the witness’s probation officer to drug-test the witness. The test was positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine. The probation officer testified before the jury about the testing of the witness and the positive results.

The defendant moved for a mistrial and to disqualify the witness under Rule of Evidence 601(b) and strike his testimony. The trial court denied both motions. The defendant was convicted of several drug charges and appealed.

The Court of Appeals found no error.

(1) Impairment by drugs does not render a witness incompetent if the witness is able to express himself well enough to be understood and is able to understand the obligation to testify truthfully. The Court of Appeals determined that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the witness did not meet this standard. The witness’s testimony was corroborated by other evidence, which, while not directly showing his competency, indicated that he was able to recall dates and events. The trial judge, who was in the best position to assess the competency of the witness, determined that he could understand the witness’s testimony and that the witness was generally understandable by the jurors. Given the trial court’s ample opportunity to observe the witness, it was not required to conduct a voir dire to assess the witness’s competency. Finally, the Court of Appeals noted that evidence of the witness’s impairment was presented to the jury, and jurors were free to determine whether they found the witness’s testimony credible. The Court of Appeals thus concluded that the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to exclude and strike the witness’s testimony.

(2) A mistrial is a drastic remedy warranted only for serious improprieties that make it impossible to obtain a fair and impartial verdict. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that the giving of testimony by a key witness for the State who was impaired met this standard. The witness was competent to testify despite his impairment and the jury was informed of his impairment. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial.

Show Table of Contents