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The court reversed a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals in this first-degree sexual offense case, holding that the trial court did not err by giving a disjunctive jury instruction. One of the factors that can elevate a second-degree sexual offense to a first-degree sexual offense is that the defendant was aided and abetted by one or more other persons; another is that the defendant used or displayed a dangerous or deadly weapon. Here, the trial court gave a disjunctive instruction, informing the jury that it could convict the defendant of the first-degree offense if it found that he was aided and abetted by another or that he used or displayed a dangerous or deadly weapon. Where, as here, the trial court instructs the jury disjunctively as to alternative acts which establish an element of the offense, the requirement of unanimity is satisfied. However, when a disjunctive instruction is used, the evidence must be sufficient under both theories. In this case it was undisputed that the evidence was sufficient under the dangerous or deadly weapon prong. The defendant contested the sufficiency of the evidence under the aiding and abetting prong. The court found the evidence sufficient, holding that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that actual or constructive presence is required for aiding and abetting. As the Court stated in State v. Bond, 345 N.C. 1 (1996), actual or constructive presence is no longer required to prove aiding and abetting. Applying that law, the court held that although the defendant’s accomplices left the room before the defendant committed the sexual act, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the others aided and abetted him. Among other things, two of the accomplices taped the hands of the residents who were present; three of them worked together to separate the sexual assault victim from the rest of the group; one of the men grabbed her and ordered her into a bedroom when she tried to sit in the bathroom; and in the bedroom the defendant and an accomplice groped and fondled the victim and removed her clothes. Most of these acts were done by the defendant and others. The act of taping her mouth shut, taping her hands behind her back, moving her into the bedroom, removing her clothing and inappropriately touching her equate to encouragement, instigation and aid all of which “readily meet the standards of . . . aiding and abetting.” The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient because he was the only person in the room when the sex act occurred.
In this Johnston County case, defendant appealed her convictions for first-degree forcible rape, first-degree forcible sexual offense, sexual servitude of a child victim, and incest of her daughter, arguing error in (1) omitting a parenthetical phrase from the pattern jury instructions for flight, and (2) instructing the jury on aiding and abetting. The Court of Appeals held that defendant waived (1), and found no error in (2).
In 2020, defendant and her husband lived separately from her daughters, who lived with their father, defendant’s ex-husband. Defendant maintained communication with her daughters, and in August 2020, two of her daughters snuck out of their father’s house to spend the night with defendant at her apartment. While there, defendant gave her daughters alcohol and partied with them, although both were underage. The older daughter and victim in the case became sick at one point, and defendant took her to lay down in a bedroom where her husband was also present. At that point, defendant’s husband began touching the victim in a sexual manner, and defendant returned to the bedroom with a pair of scissors, telling her husband “I know you want to. You can do it.” Slip Op. at 4. The husband used the scissors to cut off the victim’s underwear, and he began raping the victim. Defendant returned to the bedroom and began taking pictures with her cellphone. Eventually, defendant told her husband to stop and brought the victim clothes, and in the morning they drove the daughters back to their father’s house. After the victim reported the incident, defendant was brought to trial and eventually convicted.
Taking up (1), defendant argued it was error to omit the first sentence of N.C.P.I-Crim. 104.35, the pattern instruction on flight. Defendant did not object at trial, and although the Court of Appeals may review instructional errors that were not objected to for plain error, the defendant must “specifically and distinctly” argue the error was plain error under Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(a)(4). Id. at 11. Here, defendant did not and the argument was waived, leading the court to dismiss it.
Moving to (2), defendant argued that it was plain error to instruct the jury on aiding and abetting the crimes as the instruction was based solely on defendant being the victim’s biological mother. The court explained that the objected-to instruction “Aiding and Abetting – Parent” which instructed the jury that a parent who is present and fails to take all steps to protect their child from attack or sexual assault is subject to conviction based on aiding and abetting. Id. at 15. The instruction specifically pointed to State v. Walden, 306 N.C. 466 (1982), where the Supreme Court established parents have a “duty to take every step reasonably possible under the circumstances of a given situation to prevent harm to their children.” Slip Op. at 16 (quoting Walden at 475). However, the court noted a caveat that “one may not be found to be an aider and abettor” solely because they are present, and thus evidence must show “the defendant said or did something showing [their] consent to the criminal purpose and contribution to its execution.” Id. at 16-17 (quoting Walden at 476). Here, the court noted that even if the instruction provided did not fully capture the caveat from Walden, the State provided evidence showing defendant took actions and made statements showing her consent, highlighting that defendant told her husband “you can do it” and bringing him scissors, taking photographs while he raped her daughter, and providing alcohol and marijuana gummies to her daughters while they were underage. As a result, defendant could not show plain error.