Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

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).

E.g., 09/22/2021
E.g., 09/22/2021

(1) In a proceeding for removal of an elected district attorney (DA) from office, the trial court did not err by denying the DA’s motion to continue where the statute, G.S. 7A-66, mandated that the matter be heard within 30 days. (2) In the absence of a statutory or rule-based provision for discovery in proceedings under the statute, the DA did not have a right to discovery. (3) Where the trial court put the burden of proof in the removal proceeding on the party who had initiated the action by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, no error occurred. (4) The court held that the trial court’s rulings in the removal proceeding did not violate the DA’s right to due process, noting that the DA had no right to discovery and that the trial court properly allocated the burden of proof. (5) The standard in the relevant provision of the removal statute of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute is not unconstitutionally vague. (6) No violation of the prosecutor’s First Amendment free speech rights occurred where the DA’s removal was based on statements she made about a judge. The statements were made with actual malice and thus were not protected speech by the First Amendment. (7) Qualified immunity does not insulate the DA from removal based on statements made with actual malice. (8) Where the matter was heard without a jury, it is presumed that the trial court considered only admissible evidence, and the trial court did not err in admitting lay testimony. 

Show Table of Contents