Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sexual Offenses

Apr 15, 2016

Criminal Practice – Sexual Offenses – Discovery – Expert Opinions – Victim Characteristics

State v. Davis (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-021-16, 22 pp.) (Robin Hudson, J.) Appealed from Cleveland County Superior Court (Jeffrey Hunt, J.) On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. N.C. S. Ct. Holding: The state’s expert witnesses treated one of defendant’s sexual assault victims, and the state’s questions to these experts about the general […]

Mar 5, 2015

Criminal Practice — Sexual Offenses – Young Victims – Other Bad Acts – Expert Testimony

State v. Davis (Lawyers Weekly No. 15-07-0201, 26 pp.) (Sanford Steelman Jr., J.) Appealed from Cleveland County Superior Court (Jeffery Hunt, J.) N.C. App. Holding: The trial court admitted testimony from two witnesses, A.J. and S.W., who had interactions with defendant when they were between the ages of 12 and 14. Even if the trial […]

Feb 6, 2014

Criminal Practice – Court Reverses Sex Offender’s Civil Commitment

U.S. v. Antone (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-01-0124, 44 pp.) (Davis, J.) No. 12-2400, Feb. 4, 2014; USDC at Raleigh, N.C. (Flanagan, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: A Native American respondent who has served 13 years in federal prison for a variety of sexual offenses committed when he was high on alcohol and/or cocaine, will not be […]

Aug 28, 2013

Criminal Practice – Sex Offenses – Evidence – Defendant’s Character – Proffer – ‘Victims’

State v. Walston Evidence of defendant’s character for respectful treatment of children would make it less probable that defendant committed sexual offenses against children; therefore, the trial court erred in excluding opinion testimony as to this character trait.

Jul 19, 2012

Criminal Practice – Sexual Offenses – Constitutional – Ineffective Assistance Claim – Pro Se Defendant – In Camera Review – No Plain Error Analysis – Quashed Subpoena – Judges

State v. Brunson Where defendant filed multiple pro se motions, fired four different attorneys, and elected to represent himself at trial, defendant’s only true “counsel” was himself; accordingly, he cannot complain that the quality of his own defense amounted to a denial of effective assistance of counsel.

Jun 7, 2012

Criminal Practice – Civil Penalty – First Impression — No-Contact Order – Sexual Offenses – Constitutional

State v. Hunt A no-contact order entered pursuant to G.S. § 15A-1340.50 prohibits one convicted of a sexual offense from contacting his victim. The desire of the legislature to protect a citizen who has been victimized and is in fear of further contact from the defendant, who is part of a class of known recidivists, demonstrates an intent to create a civil, regulatory statute. Therefore,[...]

Top Legal News

See All Top Legal News


See All Commentary