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 defendant was seen handling a black box in connection with a possible drug transaction/ransom payment. The next day, officers found a black box full of cocaine in the woods nearby. The defendant was charged with and convicted of trafficking by possession. He appealed, arguing that the State’s evidence was insufficient. A divided court of appeals agreed that there was insufficient evidence that there was cocaine inside the box at the time that defendant was seen handling it. On further appeal, the supreme court held that the defendant adequately preserved the sufficiency issue, as his motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence included an argument about possession. The supreme court divided equally on the merits, with Justice Davis not participating. The opinion of the court of appeals therefore stands without precedential value.
In this Granville County case, defendant appealed her conviction for embezzlement, arguing that the trial court lacked authority to enter the order denying her motion to dismiss because it was not issued by the superior court judge who held the hearing. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion and remanded the matter for a new hearing on the motion.
In 2008, police began investigating defendant, an employee of a law firm, for allegedly embezzling approximately $50,000 from client trust funds. Due to various complications, including personnel changes and difficulty obtaining records, charges were not brought until January 2019. Defendant moved to dismiss, alleging the delay prejudiced her due to the unavailability of key documents. The trial judge who presided over the motion hearing in January 2020 orally denied it and asked the State to draft the order. This trial judge retired in October 2020. In September 2021, a new trial judge signed the order denying the motion to dismiss, with a notation that the order was issued by the previous trial judge and a citation to Rule 63 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant was subsequently convicted, and appealed.
The Court of Appeals concluded the second trial judge did not have the authority to sign the order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. Because Rule 63, which allows a judge to perform the duties of another judge under certain circumstances, applies only to civil cases, “this issue is not governed by Rule 63.” Slip Op. at 10. The court also noted that “[t]he Rules of Criminal Procedure do not address the authority of one judge to enter an order on behalf of another judge in this context,” and the State did not provide any other authority in support. Id. at 11. Looking to State v. Bartlett, 368 N.C. 309 (2015), the court applied the principle that “the judge who presided at the hearing must make the findings of fact.” Slip Op. at 12. Because the second trial judge here did not have authority to enter the order denying defendant’s motion, the court vacated her conviction and remanded for a new hearing on the motion.
Judge Stading concurred by separate opinion, emphasizing “a tempered application of State v. Bartlett” as that case focused specifically on motion to suppress statutes. Id. at 14.
The State had no right to appeal the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, made after the close of all evidence where the trial court erred by taking the defendant’s motion under advisement and failing to rule until after the jury returned its verdict. Under G.S. 15A-1227(c), when a defendant moves to dismiss based on insufficient evidence, the trial court must rule on the motion “before the trial may proceed.” Here, after the defendant moved to dismiss the trial court determined that it needed to review the transcript of an officer’s trial testimony before ruling. While waiting for the court reporter to prepare the transcript, the trial court allowed the jury to begin deliberations. Shortly after the jury returned a guilty verdict, the court reporter completed the transcript and the trial court reviewed it. The trial court then granted the motion to dismiss, explaining that the transcript showed the State had not met its burden of proof. The trial court added that it considered its ruling as one made “at the close of all the evidence.” The State appealed. While double jeopardy prevents the State from appealing the grant of a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence if it comes before the jury verdict, the State generally can appeal that ruling if it comes after the verdict (because, the court explained, if the State prevails, the trial court on remand can enter judgment consistent with the jury verdict without subjecting the defendant to a second trial). Here, the trial court’s violation of the statute prejudiced the defendant; had the trial court ruled at the proper time, no appeal would have been allowed. The court determined that the proper remedy was to preclude the State’s appeal.