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 this Durham County case, defendant appealed his convictions for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, arguing error in denying his motion to dismiss because the victim’s injuries were not “serious” under G.S. 14-32(b). The Court of Appeals found no error.
In 2022, defendant and the victim, defendant’s on-and-off girlfriend, rekindled their relationship and the victim moved into defendant’s apartment. Their relationship soured and defendant became abusive towards the victim, culminating in September 2022 when defendant punched and kicked the victim and hit her with a curtain rod and the butt of his handgun. The victim eventually escaped by jumping from the balcony and running to a nearby mail carrier for help. At the hospital, an examination documented bruising, swelling, and tenderness on the victim’s body. At trial, the State called law enforcement, EMS, and a nurse from the hospital to testify to the victim’s injuries, and admitted photographs of her injuries and hospital reports.
On appeal, defendant argued that the State provided insufficient evidence of the severity of the victim’s injuries, pointing to State v. Brunson, 180 N.C. App. 188 (2006), and State v. Ramseur, 338 N.C. 502 (1994), and arguing “Brunson and Ramseur stand for the proposition that a serious injury, at a minimum, requires medical attention that goes beyond a mere cursory examination.” Slip Op. at 10. The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument, explaining that North Carolina courts have declined to establish a threshold for serious injury, and to accept his argument here “would be to adopt a threshold requirement contrary to longstanding case law.” Id. After reviewing the record in this case, the court held that “[t]he State presented sufficient evidence to allow the jury to decide whether Defendant inflicted serious injury upon [the victim].” Id. at 11.
In this Rowan County case, defendant appealed his conviction for assault inflicting physical injury on an employee of a state detention facility, arguing the jury should have been instructed on the lesser included offense of assault on an officer or employee of the State. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no error.
In March of 2021, defendant was confined at Piedmont Correctional Center. He became agitated because he did not receive the personal hygiene items he needed and began discussing the matter with correctional officers. Eventually, a sergeant asked him to leave his cell and walk to a private area to discuss. During the walk, defendant turned around and struck the sergeant in the face with his fist, leading to a tussle before defendant was subdued. At trial, a video recording of the incident was played for the jury, and the sergeant testified that he was struck “multiple times in the face, around six to ten times.” Slip Op. at 3. During the charge conference, defense counsel requested the lesser included offense, but the trial court denied the request.
Before taking up the substance of defendant’s appeal, the Court of Appeals discussed the appellate jurisdiction for the case. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court but gave this notice the day after the trial court sentenced him for the offense. The court considered what “at the time of trial” meant for purposes of the appeal. Id. at 5. After reviewing relevant precedent and appellate rules, the court concluded that defendant’s appeal was timely because he “provided notice of appeal in open court while the judgment was in fieri and the trial court possessed the authority to modify, amend, or set aside judgments entered during that session.” Id. at 8.
Moving to the jury instruction, the court noted the distinction between the two offenses was the “physical injury” element not present in the lesser offense. The court found the physical injury element was sufficiently satisfied by the evidence showing defendant struck the sergeant in the face. Because the State supplied sufficient evidence of each element of the offense, there was no error in omitting the instruction on the lesser included offense.
In this Wake County case, defendant appealed his convictions for forcible rape, sex offense, kidnapping, various assault charges, and interfering with emergency communication, arguing (1) he was deprived of his right to autonomy in the presentation of his defense, (2) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when his attorney admitted guilt during closing argument, and (3) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for habitual misdemeanor assault due to a facially invalid indictment. The Court of Appeals majority disagreed, finding no error.
In April of 2020, defendant came to trial for assaulting and raping a woman he was dating at the time. During the trial, defense counsel informed the court that defendant would not testify or present evidence, and the trial court conducted a colloquy to ensure defendant was knowingly waiving this right. During the colloquy, defendant mentioned documentary evidence he wanted to admit, but that his attorney had not admitted. The trial court did not instruct defense counsel to introduce the evidence. During closing argument, defense counsel mentioned that defendant was not guilty of kidnapping, sexual offense, or rape, but did not mention assault. Defendant was subsequently convicted, and appealed.
In (1), defendant contended that he and defense counsel had reached an absolute impasse about the documentary evidence, and the trial court committed a structural error by failing to instruct defense counsel to comply with defendant’s wishes to admit the evidence. The Court of Appeals first noted the rule that “where the defendant and his defense counsel reach an absolute impasse and are unable come to an agreement on such tactical decisions, the defendant’s wishes must control.” Slip Op. at 5. However, here the court was “unable to determine from the cold record whether there was a true disagreement, which would amount to an absolute impasse.” Id. at 7-8. Additionally, the court explained that even if there was an error, it was not a type recognized as structural by the Supreme Court, referencing the list identified in State v. Minyard, 289 N.C. App. 436 (2023).
Moving to (2), defendant argued his defense counsel committed an error under State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (1985), which would represent ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court did not see a Harbison error, noting “defense counsel here never implied or mentioned any misconduct [by defendant]” while giving closing argument. Slip Op. at 15. Instead, the court held that “[defense counsel’s] statements cannot logically be interpreted as an implied concession of Defendant’s guilt.” Id.
Finally, in (3) defendant argued that the indictment was flawed as it failed to state the assault caused “physical injury.” Id. at 17. The court explained that here, count VIII of the indictment alleged that defendant caused “serious injury” for the assault inflicting serious injury charge. Id. at 18. The court determined that the broader term was sufficient, as “it logically follows Defendant was noticed of his need to defend against an allegation that he caused physical injury as ‘serious injury’ is defined to include physical injury.” Id. at 21.
Judge Murphy concurred in part and dissented in part by separate opinion, and would have held that the indictment for habitual misdemeanor assault in (3) was insufficient as physical injury and serious injury were not synonymous.
In an assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury case, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that three gunshot wounds to the leg constituted serious injury. The victim was shot three times, was hospitalized for two days, had surgery to remove a bone fragment from his leg, and experienced pain from the injuries up through the time of trial. From this evidence, the court concluded, it is unlikely that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the victim’s injuries were serious.
(1) There was sufficient evidence that the victim suffered serious injury. The defendant shot the victim with a shotgun, causing injuries to the victim’s calf and 18-20 pellets to lodge in his leg, which did not fully work themselves out for six months. One witness testified that the victim had holes in his leg from the ankle up and another observed blood on his leg and noted that the wounds looked like little holes from birdshot from a shotgun. (2) When the trial judge used N.C.P.J.I.—Crim. 208.15 to instruct the jury on the offense of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, it did not err by failing to also give instruction 120.12, defining serious injury.
The trial court did not commit plain error by peremptorily instructing the jury that multiple gunshot wounds to the upper body would constitute serious injury. The victim required emergency surgery, was left with scars on his chest, shoulder, back and neck, and a bullet remained in his neck, causing him continuing pain.
The trial court did not err by failing to instruct on the lesser-included offense of assault with a deadly weapon to the charge on assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. After a beating by the defendant, the victim received hospital treatment, had contusions and bruises on her knee, could not walk for about a week and a half, and her knee still hurt at the time of trial.
The evidence was sufficient to establish serious injury where the defendant had a three-inch knife during the assault; the victim bled “a lot” from his wounds, dripping blood throughout the bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen; the victim was on the floor in pain and spitting up blood when the officer arrived; the victim was stabbed or cut 8 or 9 times and had wounds on his lip, back, and arm; the victim was removed by stretcher to the emergency room, where he remained for 12 hours, receiving a chest tube to drain blood, stitches in his back and arm, and was placed on a ventilator because of a lung puncture; the victim received pain medication for approximately one week; and at trial the victim still had visible scars on his lip, arm, and back.