Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

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).

Criminal Procedure > Jury Instructions > Corrected Instructions

State v. Boyd, COA 24-36, ___ N.C. App. ___ 2025-02-05

Criminal Procedure > Jury Instructions > Specific Instructions > Homicide > Premeditation & Deliberation

Criminal Procedure > Jury Misconduct & Improper Contact with Jurors

Criminal Procedure > Speedy Trial & Related Issues

In this Pasquotank County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a felon, and interfering with an electronic monitoring device, arguing error in (1) violation of his right to a speedy trial, (2) failure to inquire or replace a juror who fell asleep, and (3) giving clarification of jury instructions. The Court of Appeals remanded for consideration of the relevant factors in (1), but found no error with (2)-(3).

In October of 2020, the victim was found shot to death in a parked vehicle at an Elizabeth City apartment complex. Witnesses observed the victim and another man, later identified as defendant, arguing in the parking lot before the shooting. Defendant was arrested in New York in November 2020 and was held until his trial in March of 2023. During this time, defendant filed two motions for speedy trial and a motion to dismiss for violation of his speedy trial rights, all of which the trial court denied. During the trial, one juror was observed closing her eyes and apparently sleeping, but the trial court denied the request to replace the juror with an alternate. During jury deliberations, the jurors sent a request for clarification of the difference between first- and second-degree murder, and the trial court provided an explanation involving “premeditation and deliberation.” Slip Op. at 7. Defense counsel argued that this instruction left out “intent to kill” but the trial court declined to further instruct the jury. Id.

Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals looked to Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), and North Carolina precedent adopting the Barker factors for speedy trial violations, noting that “when a delay approaches a year, it is enough to cause concern that the delay may be unreasonable and to trigger examination of all four Barker factors.” Id. at 11. In the current case, the trial court held a hearing in November of 2022 on the motion to dismiss, but the trial court did not reduce its findings to a written order or articulate findings under the Barker factors. Because the trial court’s oral statements did not show conclusions on “the issue of presumptive prejudice” or “whether the trial court ever considered any of the Barker factors,” the court remanded for a determination with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Slip Op. at 13.

Considering (2), the court explained that “[t]he trial court sits in the best position to evaluate the significance of the allegation against the juror” and here, the trial court “acted within its discretion in declining to conduct further inquiry.” Id. at 15. The court found no error in declining to investigate further in the current case.

Reaching (3), the court noted that “[t]he trial court omitted . . . the intent to kill requirement when giving the final mandate, a summary of the charge, to the jury before sending them back to deliberations.” Id. at 16. Applying the plain error standard, the court found no error, as the instruction was “incomplete” but not contradictory, and significant evidence showed defendant’s guilt. Id. at 18.

State v. Voltz, ___ N.C. App. ___, 804 S.E.2d 760 2017-08-15

Criminal Procedure > Jury Instructions > Material Conflict in Instructions

(1) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by providing the jury with written jury instructions on the charge of felonious breaking or entering which conflicted and materially differed from the court’s earlier oral instructions. As a general rule, when there are conflicting instructions on a material point, a new trial is required. Here, the trial court’s initial oral instructions stated, in part, that the jury must find that, at the time of the breaking or entering, the defendant intended to commit the felony of assault. Subsequently, the trial court noted to counsel that he wanted to add the definition of “the felony of assault” in written instructions to be given to the jury. Both sides agreed to the trial court’s proposed language. The revised language stated that the felony of assault would be assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious bodily injury or an attempt to commit that crime. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the oral and written instructions conflicted. Here, recognizing that the oral instructions may have been insufficient, the trial court provided the additional language simply to further define “the felony of assault.” The trial court may clarify its jury instructions. (2) Even assuming that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, the error did not rise to the level of plain error.

Show Table of Contents