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 Fifth Amendment does not prohibit the government from introducing evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of a criminal defendant to rebut that defendant’s presentation of expert testimony in support of a defense of voluntary intoxication. It explained:
[We hold]...
Use at trial of the defendant’s silence during a non-custodial interview did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warnings, the defendant voluntarily answered an officer’s questions about a murder. But when asked whether his shotgun would...
The defendant was charged with felony trafficking in methamphetamine and misdemeanor simple possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a notice of her intent to rely upon the affirmative defense of duress. At trial, the detective who was present at the scene testified for...
(1) On discretionary review of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 808 S.E.2d 450 (2017), the court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the trial judge erred by admitting the defendant’s affidavit of indigency into evidence over the defendant’s objection...
Reversing the Court of Appeals, the court held that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights in connection with a civil domestic violence protective order hearing. During the defendant’s case-in-chief, but before the defendant took the stand, the trial court asked...
Affirming an unpublished court of appeals’ decision, the court held that no plain error occurred when a State’s witness testified that the defendant exercised his right to remain silent. On direct examination an officer testified that after he read the defendant his Miranda rights, the...
In this Wilson County case, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder related to a dispute arising out of a card game. Though the defendant told the victim he was going to kill him, and though multiple witnesses saw the defendant shoot the victim, the defendant...
In this embezzlement case, the trial court did not commit plain error by allowing a detective to testify regarding the defendant’s post-arrest silence. The defendant opened the door to the testimony by pursuing a line of inquiry on cross-examination centering around the detective’s attempts to...
(1) The trial court did not err by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant Perry regarding his post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence. Defendants Perry and Powell appealed from judgments entered upon jury verdicts finding them guilty of offenses in connection with a shooting. The defendants...
The trial court did not err by allowing the State to use the defendant’s post-arrest exercise of his right to remain silent against him. Here, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant was given Miranda warnings or that he ever invoked his right to remain silent. In fact, the...
In this sexual assault case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State’s impeachment of the defendant with his post-Miranda silence violated the defendant’s constitutional rights. After the defendant was arrested and read his Miranda rights, he signed a waiver of his rights and...
In this child sexual assault case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the defendant’s wife improperly testified as to the defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right to remain silent after arrest. The defendant pointed to the witness’s answer to a question about whether she...
In this larceny and obtaining property by false pretenses case, the court held: “[t]estimony that the investigating detective was unable to reach defendant to question him during her investigation was admissible to describe the course of her investigation, and was not improper testimony of...
The trial court did not err by instructing the jury that “[e]xcept as it relates to the defendant’s truthfulness, you may not consider the defendant’s refusal to answer police questions as evidence of guilt in this case” but that “this Fifth Amendment protection applies only to police...
By commenting in closing statements that the defendant failed to produce witnesses or evidence to contradict the State’s evidence, the prosecutor did not impermissibly comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent.
The State did not impermissibly present evidence of the defendant’s post-Miranda silence. After being advised of his Miranda rights, the defendant did not remain silent but rather made statements to the police. Thus, no error occurred when an officer indicated that after his...
The trial court committed plain error by allowing the State to cross-examine the defendant about his failure to make a post-arrest statement to officers and to comment in closing argument on the defendant’s decision to refrain from giving such a statement. The following factors, none of which is...
The trial court committed error by allowing the State to use the defendant’s pre- and post-arrest silence as substantive evidence of guilt. When explaining the circumstances of the defendant’s initial interview, an officer testifying for the State stated: “He provided me – he denied any...
The trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence, during its case in chief, of the defendant's pre-arrest and post-arrest, pre-Miranda warnings silence. The only permissible purpose for such evidence is impeachment; since the defendant had not yet testified when the...
The trial court did not improperly allow use of the defendant’s post-arrest silence when it allowed the State to impeach him with his failure to provide information about an alleged meeting with a drug dealer. In this murder case, the defendant claimed that the child victim drowned in a bathtub...
The trial court erred in allowing the state to question the defendant about his failure to make a statement to law enforcement and to reference the defendant’s silence in closing argument.