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., 06/17/2024
E.g., 06/17/2024
State v. Yencer, 365 N.C. 292 (Nov. 10, 2011)

The supreme court held that the Campus Police Act, as applied to the defendant, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The facts underlying the case involved a Davidson College Police Department officer’s arrest of the defendant for impaired and reckless driving. The court of appeals held, in State v. Yencer, 206 N.C. App. 552 (Aug. 17, 2010), that because Davidson College is a religious institution, delegation of state police power to Davidson’s campus police force was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. Applying the three-pronged test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the supreme court reversed, holding that as applied to the defendant’s case, the Campus Police Act does not offend the Establishment Clause.

King v. Town of Chapel Hill, 227 N.C. App. 545 (June 4, 2013) aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 367 N.C. 400 (Jun 12 2014)

(1) Reversing the trial court, the court held that the Town of Chapel Hill’s Towing Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power under G.S. 160A-174(a). (2) The trial court improperly enjoined enforcement of the Town’s Mobile Phone Ordinance. The ordinance prohibits the use of mobile phones while driving. The court found that the trial court erred in determining that the Plaintiff was subject to a manifest threat of irreparable harm through enforcement of the Mobile Phone Ordinance. The court noted that “[i]f Plaintiff wishes to challenge the validity of the Mobile Phone Ordinance, he must do so in the context of his own case."

Show Table of Contents