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).
In a case where the defendant was convicted of interfering with an electronic monitoring device, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court committed plain error by admitting hearsay evidence regarding the ankle monitor in question. The defendant was subjected to electronic monitoring as a condition of probation. The defendant’s electronic monitoring equipment was installed by BI Total Monitoring and included an ankle monitor, a beacon that uses a GPS system to track the monitor, and a charger. The ankle monitor and beacon have serial numbers specific to the probationer. BI Total Monitoring’s computer software, BI Total Access, keeps logs of which serial numbers are assigned to each probationer. When an ankle monitor is not in the beacon’s range, it transmits a GPS signal that enables the probation officer to log into a computer program and see where the probationer is located. When a probationer removes the ankle monitor, BI Total Monitoring notifies the probation office. On-call probation officer Ashe received an alert that the defendant’s ankle monitor strap had been tampered with. Ashe used the GPS to locate the monitor miles from the defendant’s residence, in a ditch off of the road. He took the monitor to his office, where he verified that it was assigned and installed on the defendant. On appeal the defendant argued that the trial court committed plain error when it allowed Ashe to provide testimony based on GPS tracking evidence and simultaneously prepared reports to establish that the ankle monitor that he found was the same monitor that had been installed on the defendant. The defendant argued that this testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court disagreed, finding that the evidence in question fell within the Rule 803(6) exception for business records.
In this methamphetamine case, a report about the defendant’s pseudoephedrine purchases was properly admitted as a business record. The report was generated from the NPLEx database. The defendant argued that the State failed to lay a proper foundation, asserting that the State was required to present testimony from someone associated with the database, or the company responsible for maintaining it, regarding the methods used to collect, maintain and review the data in the database to ensure its accuracy. The court disagreed. Among other things, an officer testified about his knowledge and familiarity with the database and how it is used by pharmacy employees. This testimony provided a sufficient foundation for the admission of the report as a business record.
The trial court properly admitted data obtained from an electronic surveillance device worn by the defendant and placing him at the scene. The specific evidence included an exhibit showing an event log compiled from data retrieved from the defendant’s device and a video file plotting the defendant’s tracking data. The court began by holding that the tracking data was a data compilation and that the video file was merely an extraction of that data produced for trial. Thus, it concluded, the video file was properly admitted as a business record if the tracking data was recorded in the regular course of business near the time of the incident and a proper foundation was laid. The defendant did not dispute that the device’s data was recorded in the regular course of business near the time of the incident. Rather, he asserted that the State failed to establish a proper foundation to verify the authenticity and trustworthiness of the data. The court disagreed noting that the officer-witness established his familiarity with the GPS tracking system by testifying about his experience and training in electronic monitoring, concerning how the device transmits data to a secured server where the data was stored and routinely accessed in the normal course of business, and how, in this case, he accessed the tracking data for the defendant’s device and produced evidence introduced at trial.
In this civil case the court held that an officer’s accident report, prepared near the time of the accident, using information from individuals who had personal knowledge of the accident was admissible under the Rule 803(6) hearsay exception.
In a case in which the defendant was charged with, among other things, armed robbery and possession of a stolen handgun, no plain error occurred when the trial court admitted, under Rule 803(6) (records of regularly conducted activity) testimony that the National Crime Information Center ("NCIC") database indicated a gun with the same serial number as the one possessed by the defendant had been reported stolen in South Miami, Florida. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State failed to lay the necessary foundation for admission of the evidence. The defendant had argued that the State was required to present testimony from a custodian of records for NCIC that the information was regularly kept in the course of NCIC's business and that NCIC routinely makes such records in the course of conducting its business. The proper foundation was laid through the testimony of a local police officer who used the database in his regular course of business.