Criminal Practice – Racial Justice Act – Repeal – Constitutional – Ex Post Facto Law

The trial court dismissed defendant’s motions for appropriate relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) and the amended RJA after the General Assembly repealed the RJA. For the reasons stated in State v. Ramseur (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-071-20), the repeal of the RJA was unconstitutional as applied to defendant and others similarly situated. Further, the amended RJA can only be applied to defendant insofar as it affects the procedural aspects of his claims.

The trial court’s order is vacated and remanded.

As to the merits of defendant’s claims, the trial court abused its discretion by summarily denying the claims without an evidentiary hearing. 

Dissent

(Newby, J.) For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in State v. Ramseur, I respectfully dissent.

State v. Burke (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-072-20, 7 pp.) (Anita Earls, J.) (Paul Newby, J., dissenting) (Sam Ervin, J., not participating) Appealed from the Superior Court in Iredell County (Joseph Crosswhite, J.) Jonathan Babb and Danielle Marquis Elder for the state;  Gretchen Engel and Malcolm Hunter for defendant; Cassandra Stubbs, Irena Como, Burton Craige, James Coleman, Irv Joyner, Brian Stull, Henderson Hill, Carlos Mahoney, Jin Hee Lee and Kerrel Murray for amici curiae. N.C. S. Ct.