Free Newsletter
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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.
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.
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
- JPMorgan to pay $75M on Epstein trafficking claim
- Hunter Biden sues Giuliani over computer data access
- Technology and legal education
- NC Medicaid expansion launches Dec. 1
- Whistleblowers want court to continue Paxton lawsuit
- Attorneys: First Amendment protects Trump in ‘insurrection’ cases
- Cooper allows budget to become law; Medicaid will expand
- Alabama fraternity faces hazing lawsuit
- Judge handling Trump case faces tremendous pressure
- VIDEO: 5 Questions With … Jan E. Pritchett
- Conflicted Appeals Court affirms removal of Superior Court clerk
- NC transgender health case might go to high court
Commentary
- Amotion sees resurgence after almost a decade
- The flip side of generative AI in law and how to address it
- The fight for equal educational opportunity continues
- Court’s term was rough on big business
- Ex-president, bar association have made their choice
- Ruling sharpens boundaries in attorney-client privilege
- Lawyers Weekly debuts new and improved web experience
- US Supreme Court bites back at parody’s use of the First Amendment
- Supreme Court leaves key internet protection untouched
- Case study: North Carolina courts provide guidance on scope, limitations of attorney-client privilege
- A Different Ode to Pro Bono Work
- A roadmap to attracting, developing, retaining great associates
