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., 04/14/2024
E.g., 04/14/2024
(Dec. 31, 1969)

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion below, the court reversed State v. McKenzie, 225 N.C. App. 208 (Jan. 15, 2013), which had held, over a dissent, that prosecuting the defendant for DWI violated double jeopardy where the defendant previously was subjected to a one-year...

(Dec. 31, 1969)

Affirming a divided decision below, Lee v. Gore, 206 N.C. App. 374 (Aug. 17, 2010), the court held that the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) may not revoke driving privileges for a willful refusal to submit to chemical analysis absent receipt of an affidavit swearing that the refusal was indeed...

(Dec. 31, 1969)

In this license revocation case arising from a DWI charge, the court concluded that the DMV did not have jurisdiction to revoke the petitioner’s drivers license because the affidavit submitted to the DMV showed that the arresting officer designated a blood test but that the petitioner refused a...

(Dec. 31, 1969)

The trial court erred by determining that a clerical error on a law enforcement officer’s affidavit under G.S. 20-16.2(d) divests the DMV of its authority to suspend the driving privileges of a person who has willfully refused to submit to a chemical analysis when charged with an implied consent...

(Dec. 31, 1969)

(1) In an appeal of a driver’s license revocation under G.S. 20-16.2(e), the court declined to consider the defendant’s argument that the officer lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop his vehicle. Reasonable and articulable suspicion for the stop is not relevant to determinations...

Show Table of Contents