State v. Caudill : Defendant was (1) arrested on drug charges at 9:00 a.m., (2) transported the Oak Island police department and then to the Brunswick County Jail, (3) interviewed about the robbery and murder at issue in this case, and then (4) taken before a magistrate at 2:53 p.m. Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights before he was interviewed about the robbery and murder. Defendant has failed to show he would not have admitted to the robbery and murder had he been advised of the same rights again by the magistrate; therefore, we are unable to find a causal relationship between the delay and the incriminating statements defendant made during his interview
State v. Threadgill Defendant knew that his prior record level worksheet classified his South Carolina conviction for financial transaction card theft as a Class I felony; however, even after the prosecutor mentioned the classification, defendant only contested his Montana and Anson County convictions.
In re V.C.R. Even though the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the juvenile twice – once for smoking and the second time for disorderly conduct – once the juvenile was calm during the second stop, the officer did not have probable cause to search her.
State v. Williams In granting its own motion for appropriate relief from the sentence it had imposed the day before, the trial court cited four factors in extraordinary mitigation; however, two of the cited factors were normal statutory mitigating factors without the necessary additional findings to make them extraordinary, the third factor was not a proper mitigating factor, and the fourth factor was not supported by the evidence.
State v. Macon Defendant’s first DWI trial ended in a mistrial; therefore, in legal contemplation, the first trial never happened. The judge at defendant’s retrial was not bound by the first judge’s ruling as to jury instructions.
V=State v. Norman The state presented sufficient evidence of force via the victim’s testimony about defendant’s earlier harassment of her and her rebuffs of his advances, and, when they were left alone, his unwanted touching of her, her verbal rejection of him, and her physical attempts to keep him from touching her.
State v. Torres-Gonzalez Since the state doesn’t need to prove possession in order to prove conspiracy to traffic by possession, there was no inconsistency in the jury’s verdicts of (1) guilty of conspiracy to traffic by possession and (2) not guilty of trafficking by possession.
State v. Heavner Where defendant spat on a deputy twice – five minutes apart -- during his arrest, each spitting incident was a separate violation of G.S. § 14-258.4. The statute is not ambiguous; therefore, the rule of lenity does not apply.
U.S. v. Abdulwahab : In this fraud case involving a scheme to sell life settlement investments, which resulted in nearly $100 million in losses for investors, the 4th Circuit interprets “proceeds” of the scheme as “net profits” and overturns defendant’s money laundering convictions; the court affirms defendant’s remaining fraud convictions, but vacates defendant’s sentence and remands for resentencing
U.S. v. Springer : The 4th Circuit says a district court did not clearly err in finding a serial sexual abuser of minors was ineligible for civil commitment because the government did not prove he suffered from a serious mental illness; the appellate panel does not reach the question of whether the re-incarcerated offender could control his dangerous impulses.