Quantcast

Tag Archives: SBM

Criminal Practice – ‘Victim’ – No Plain Error – SBM – Appeals (access required)

State v. Surratt We cannot hold that the trial court’s reference to the prosecuting witness as the “victim” was an error so basic and lacking in its elements that justice could not have been done. Therefore, defendant has failed to show plain error. Where defendant failed to file a written notice of appeal - which is required to appeal from an order for satellite-based monitoring - and where defendant has also failed to petition this court for a writ of certiorari, we dismiss her contention that the trial court erred in requiring her to submit to satellite-based monitoring.

Read More »

Criminal Practice – SBM – Civil Proceeding – Initiation & Notice (access required)

State v. Self Even though satellite-based monitoring (SBM) is a civil regulatory scheme, SBM proceedings are not required to be initiated pursuant to the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules “govern the procedure in the superior and district courts of the State of North Carolina in all actions and proceedings of a civil nature except when a differing procedure is prescribed by statute."

Read More »

Criminal Practice – Statutory Rape & Sex Offense – Anal Penetration – SBM – DSS ‘Substantiation’ Evidence (access required)

State v. Sprouse The minor victim, A.B., testified that defendant “inserted his penis ... into [her] butt,” however slightly; that the incident was painful; and that A.B. wiped blood from the area immediately after the incident. A.B.’s testimony was substantial evidence from which a jury could find that defendant penetrated the anal opening during the incident. The trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss one charge of statutory sex offense and one charge of sexual activity by a substitute parent based on the incident.

Read More »

Criminal Practice – Sex Offense – Aiding & Abetting – Child’s Duress — SBM (access required)

State v. Stokes Defendant forced his 12-year-old son to perform sexual acts upon defendant’s young daughter. Even though the son was acting under duress, defendant is still guilty of aiding and abetting a sex offense. We find no error in defendant’s convictions of aiding and abetting first-degree sex offense, two counts of felony child abuse – sexual act, and first-degree sex offense with a child. We reverse and remand the order for satellite-based monitoring (SBM) for a new hearing.

Read More »