<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Criminal Practice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/criminal-practice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 21:09:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; No Restitution Payment with Tax Refund&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/criminal-practice-no-restitution-payment-with-tax-refund/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/criminal-practice-no-restitution-payment-with-tax-refund/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 20:06:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73112</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>U.S. v. Grant</em>  A district court abused its discretion in adding as a special condition to defendant’s sentencing order an obligation to turn over any tax refund as part of her restitution for illegal receipt of social security payments, and the 4th Circuit vacates the order setting the special condition.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/criminal-practice-no-restitution-payment-with-tax-refund/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Involuntary Manslaughter – Alcohol Poisoning &#8212; Aiding &amp; Abetting a Minor in Possession – Evidence &#8212; Prior Bad Acts&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/criminal-practice-involuntary-manslaughter-alcohol-poisoning-aiding-abetting-a-minor-in-possession-evidence-prior-bad-acts-2/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/criminal-practice-involuntary-manslaughter-alcohol-poisoning-aiding-abetting-a-minor-in-possession-evidence-prior-bad-acts-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 15:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alcohol poisoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73083</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Noble</em> : Evidence of defendant’s pattern of encouraging persons under 21 years of age to drink alcohol at her home was admissible to help the state prove she aided and abetted the victim – a person she knew to be under 21 – in drinking alcohol on the day he died of alcohol poisoning.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/criminal-practice-involuntary-manslaughter-alcohol-poisoning-aiding-abetting-a-minor-in-possession-evidence-prior-bad-acts-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Self-Defense – Aggressor Instruction – Plain Error&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/criminal-practice-self-defense-aggressor-instruction-plain-error/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/criminal-practice-self-defense-aggressor-instruction-plain-error/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 20:07:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-defense]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73032</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Vaughn </em>  Even though defendant was angry that Shawn Pressley had beaten and injured her, she was also concerned for her friend, Latisha Kenney, with whom Pressley was arguing, when defendant got out of the safety of her car, carrying a knife. Pressley charged defendant, and she stabbed him. Since there was no evidence that defendant was the aggressor, the trial court plainly erred when it instructed the jury that self-defense is justified only if the defendant is not the aggressor.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/10/criminal-practice-self-defense-aggressor-instruction-plain-error/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Restitution Reversed for Unnamed ‘Victim’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-restitution-reversed-for-unnamed-victim/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-restitution-reversed-for-unnamed-victim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 20:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72985</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>U.S. v. Davis </em> The 4th Circuit reverses a sentencing order insofar as it required defendant to pay $685 in restitution for a homeowner’s broken window and homeowner’s deductible, on defendant’s conviction pursuant to a plea agreement to possession of a stolen firearm; the presentence report identified no “victim” of the offense of conviction, and the restitution order was not authorized by statute.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-restitution-reversed-for-unnamed-victim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Probation Revocation – Attorneys – Statutory Right to Counsel – No Prejudice&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-attorneys-statutory-right-to-counsel-no-prejudice/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-attorneys-statutory-right-to-counsel-no-prejudice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 20:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Revocation Hearing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72971</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Webb </em> Kelly Greene was appointed as counsel for defendant, but Tom Wilson represented him at his probation revocation hearing. Even if the trial court did not make the necessary findings in open court regarding a substitute attorney, since defendant admitted to the probation violation and expressed no dissatisfaction with Mr. Wilson’s services, any error by the trial court was not prejudicial.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-attorneys-statutory-right-to-counsel-no-prejudice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Opium Trafficking – Police-Arranged Buy – Entrapment Defense – Inapplicable&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-opium-trafficking-police-arranged-buy-entrapment-defense-inapplicable/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-opium-trafficking-police-arranged-buy-entrapment-defense-inapplicable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 15:57:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[possession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trafficking]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72965</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Thomas </em> Although police set up the drug buy at issue, since defendant had been buying similar pills from the same person for months, defendant was not entrapped. We find no error in defendant’s convictions of trafficking in opium or heroin by possession and trafficking in opium or heroin by transportation. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-opium-trafficking-police-arranged-buy-entrapment-defense-inapplicable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Probation Revocation – Insufficient Notice&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-insufficient-notice/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-insufficient-notice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 15:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[therapeutic requirements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72963</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Tindall </em> Where the probation violation reports alleged only that defendant violated two conditions of her probation – to “not use, possess or control any illegal drug” and to “participate in further evaluation, counseling, treatment or education programs recommended ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-insufficient-notice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice Possession of Stolen Goods – Serial &amp; Model Numbers – Variations – Acting in Concert – Proximity&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-possession-of-stolen-goods-serial-model-numbers-variations-acting-in-concert-proximity/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-possession-of-stolen-goods-serial-model-numbers-variations-acting-in-concert-proximity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 15:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stolen Items]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72960</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Greenlee </em> Despite slight variances between the incident report descriptions of items reported stolen and the descriptions of items sold to a pawn shop by defendant, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of possession of stolen goods with respect to a stolen GPS, a Tascam Recorder, and a men’s watch.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-possession-of-stolen-goods-serial-model-numbers-variations-acting-in-concert-proximity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Constitutional – Attorneys – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Search &amp; Seizure&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-constitutional-attorneys-ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-search-seizure/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-constitutional-attorneys-ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-search-seizure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 15:45:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ineffective assistance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72957</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Gerald</em> : An assault victim’s brother, Eric Bullard, his wife Christy, and a deputy sheriff entered defendant’s locked, empty home without a warrant, and the deputy waited while the Bullards took pictures and collected “evidence” of the assault. When defense counsel failed to object to the admission of the pictures and evidence collected by the Bullards, counsel provided ineffective assistance.

Defendant is entitled to a new trial.

]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-constitutional-attorneys-ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-search-seizure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Juvenile – Attorneys – Effective Assistance – No Closing Argument&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-juvenile-attorneys-effective-assistance-no-closing-argument/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-juvenile-attorneys-effective-assistance-no-closing-argument/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 15:38:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Juvenile Delinquency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>In re C.W.N. </em> An attorney’s failure to present a closing argument in the context of a nonjury juvenile delinquency hearing is not, standing alone, ineffective assistance of counsel per se.

We affirm the adjudication of delinquency.

]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/criminal-practice-juvenile-attorneys-effective-assistance-no-closing-argument/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
