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 Sixth Amendment’s speedy trial guarantee does not apply to the sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution. After pleading guilty to bail-jumping, the defendant was jailed for over 14 months awaiting sentence on that conviction. The defendant argued that the 14-month gap between conviction...
Delay caused by appointed defense counsel or a public defender is not attributable to the state in determining whether a defendant’s speedy trial right was violated, unless the delay resulted from a systemic breakdown in the public defender system.
The Supreme Court affirmed per curiam the order denying defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari issued by a Wake County Superior Court judge. The court allowed a petition for discretionary review prior to determination by the Court of Appeals and combined this matter with ...
In this Wake County case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision denying defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari, and dismissed as improvidently allowed issues related to defendant’s petition for discretionary review and the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. ...
On discretionary review of a unanimous opinion of the Court of Appeals, 274 N.C. App. 65 (2020), the Supreme Court held in this Rowan County case that the trial court plainly erred by admitting testimony that violated the defendant’s attorney-client privilege and consequently reversed the trial...
In this case involving charges of first-degree sex offense with a child and indecent liberties, the court found that the procedural circumstances were “unsettling” but did not constitute an infringement upon the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. In May 2012, the...
In this Guilford County case, Defendant appealed his convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine, arguing insufficient evidence to support his convictions and denial of his right to a speedy trial. The Court of Appeals found no error.
In February of 2016, defendant was a part of a...
The defendant appealed from his Alamance County convictions for attempted murder, discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle, possession of firearm by felon, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. The offenses arose from an incident where the defendant and his romantic partner...
In this Guilford County case, the defendant was convicted by a jury of indecent liberties with a child in May 2019 for a 2011 incident involving his daughter’s 6-year-old friend. He was sentenced to 28-43 months in prison and ordered to enroll in satellite-based monitoring for life. (1) The...
The plaintiff sued the State of North Carolina, City of Durham, various people who worked for the State Bureau of Investigation, the Durham Police Department, and the Durham County District Attorney’s office for a permanent injunction and money damages to redress harms allegedly suffered in...
In this child sexual assault case, the court remanded for further findings with respect to the defendant’s speedy trial motion. Although the trial court was not obligated to consider the defendant’s pro se speedy trial motion while he was represented, because it did so, it erred by failing to...
On an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights in a case involving a trial delay of 3 years and 9 months, the court held that because the trial court failed to adequately weigh and apply the Barker v. Wingo factors and to fully consider the...
(1) In this impaired driving case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that his speedy trial rights were violated due to a four year delay between indictment and trial. Considering the speedy trial factors, the court found that the length of delay weighed in the defendant’s favor. The...
No violation of the defendant’s speedy trial right occurred. The court began by finding that the delay of two years and 10 months was extensive enough to trigger consideration of the other speedy trial factors. Rejecting the defendant’s argument to the contrary, the court held that with respect...
In a case where the trial was delayed because of backlogs at the crime lab and because of issues with counsel, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s speedy trial motion, made shortly before trial. Applying the Barker v. Wingo four-part speedy trial analysis, the court began by...
In this child sexual abuse case, the defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial. The more than three-year delay between indictment and trial is sufficiently long to trigger analysis of the remaining speedy trial factors. Considering those factors, the court found that the evidence “...
Applying the four-factor speedy trial test of Barker v. Wingo, the court concluded that no speedy trial violation occurred. The nine year gap between the time of indictment and the hearing on the speedy trial motion is presumptively prejudicial. However while extraordinary, this delay...
Although the issue does not appear to have been raised by the defendant on appeal in this second-degree murder case, the court noted: “[O]ur review of the record shows defendant was arrested on 1 September 2009 and was tried in August and September of 2013, almost four years later. . . . The...
The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss on grounds of excessive pre-indictment delay. A challenge to a pre-indictment delay is predicated on an alleged violation of the due process clause. To prevail, a defendant must show both actual and substantial prejudice...
No speedy trial violation occurred when there was a 27-month delay between the indictments and trial. Among other things, the defendant offered no evidence that the State’s neglect or willfulness caused a delay and failed to show actual, substantial prejudice caused by the delay.
The defendant was not denied his speedy trial rights. The date of the offense and the initial charge was 7 March 2006. The defendant was tried upon a re-filed charge in district court on 13 Apr. 2009. The defendant never made a speedy trial motion in district court; his only speedy trial request...
The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges on grounds of a speedy trial violation. The time between arrest and trial was approximately twenty-two months. Although the defendant asserted that the State was responsible for the delay by not calendaring his...
(1) G.S. 15A-711 is not a speedy trial statute. G.S. 15A-711 provides an imprisoned criminal defendant the right to formally request that the prosecutor make a written request for his or her return to the custody of local law enforcement officers in the jurisdiction in which the defendant has...
(1) G.S. 15A-711(c) could not support the defendant’s statutory speedy trial claim where he had no other criminal charges pending against him at the time he was confined and awaiting trial. (2) The court rejected the defendant’s constitutional speedy trial claim. The defendant made no argument...
(1) Remanding for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court noted that G.S. 15A-711 does not guarantee a defendant the right to have a matter tried within a specific period of time and is not a "speedy trial" statute. (2) The court remanded for further action the trial court’...
The court rejected the defendant’s speedy trial claim, finding that any delay was caused by his failure to state whether he asserted or waived his right to counsel, requiring four hearings on the issue.
Concluding that the defendant’s claim of pre-indictment delay was not covered by the Speedy Trial clause; reviewing the defendant’s claim of pre-indictment delay as a violation of due process and finding no prejudice.