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).
The trial court did not err when instructing the jury on the offense of unlawfully taking deer with the assistance of artificial lighting. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court expressed an opinion when giving the jury instructions, concluding that the trial court gave the jury an accurate statement of the prima facie evidentiary requirements for the charged offense.
(1) In this hunting without a license case, the trial court did not err by denying defendant Oxendine’s request to instruct the jury on legal justification. The defendant argued that he was exempt under G.S. 113-276 from the requirement of a hunting license because he had been engaged in a Native American religious hunting ceremony. That statute applies to “member[s] of an Indian tribe recognized under Chapter 71A of the General Statutes.” Although the defendant argued that he is “an enrolled member of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy of the Tuscarora Nation,” he is not a member of a Native American tribe recognized under Chapter 71A. Additionally the defendant did not show that he was hunting on tribal land, as required by the statute. (2) The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant Pedro of hunting without a license. Based on the facts presented, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State’s evidence was insufficient to show that he “was preparing to immediately kill a dove.”