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).
Affirming the decision below, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the defendant’s proffered expert testimony did not meet the standard for admissibility under Rule 702(a). The defendant offered its expert to testify on three principal topics: that,...
In this Guilford County case, defendant appealed her conviction for trafficking methamphetamine, arguing (1) plain error in admitting testimony from an expert without a sufficient foundation for reliability under Rule of Evidence 702, and (2) error in failing to intervene ex mero motu ...
In this first-degree murder and discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle in operation case, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court did not commit reversible error on evidentiary issues and that there was no cumulative error. Defendant was jealous of Demesha Warren’s...
The defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual offense with a child by an adult, rape of a child, first-degree kidnapping, and two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child in Wake County, stemming from the assault of a six-year-old child at a church.
(1) In regard to one of...
The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in Person County. The victim was a neighbor with whom the defendant had long-running disputes. According to the defendant, he shot the neighbor in self-defense. The victim was shot 11 or 12 times, with the vast majority of the bullets having...
(1) The defendant was convicted of possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance and sale of methamphetamine. At trial, the State presented the testimony of an expert in drug chemistry from the North Carolina State Crime Lab. She testified that she performed...
The defendant was convicted of armed robbery in Mecklenburg County and appealed. He complained that a fingerprint analyst’s expert testimony failed to show that the witness applied reliably applied the relevant methods and principles to the case, in violation of N.C. Evid. Rule 702(a)(3)....
Defendants Molly Martens Corbett (“Molly”) and Thomas Michael Martens (“Tom”), daughter and father, were convicted of second degree murder in the death of Molly’s husband, Jason Corbett (“Jason”). Evidence at trial established that Tom attempted to stop Jason from choking Molly by hitting Jason...
The defendant was convicted of statutory rape of C.C., a 13-year-old child. This was the second trial of the defendant; at the first trial involving the events of that evening, the jury acquitted him on some charges and there was a mistrial on the statutory rape charge. At the second trial, the...
In this child sexual assault case, the trial court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State’s expert witness was not qualified to give testimony under amended Rule 702. Because the defendant was indicted on April 11, 2011, the amendments to Rule 702 do not apply to his case.
For purposes of applying the effective date of the amendment to Rule 702 (the amended rule applies to actions "arising on or after" 1 October 2011), in a case where a superseding indictment is used, the relevant date is the date the superseding indictment is filed, not the filing date of the...
In criminal cases, the amendment to N.C.Evid. R. 702, which is “effective October 1, 2011, and applies to actions commenced on or after that date” applies to cases where the indictment is filed on or after that date. The court noted that it had suggested in a footnote in a prior unpublished...