Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog
Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What happens if I am convicted of a DUI or DWI in North Carolina?”
An interesting case in Oregon was recently decided that resulted in one person’s DUI conviction being thrown out and the case remanded for retrial. The defense was an unusual one, but it proved quite effective. In the case, James Newman’s defense attorneys successfully argued that their client was asleep at the time of the incident and thus could not be held legally responsible for his actions.
The case began back in 2008 when Newman was arrested in Portland for driving with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.08 percent. Newman was charged with drunk driving and had his case move on to trial where his attorney initially floated the idea that sleepdriving at the time of the arrest was the cause and not his client’s knowing decision to get behind the wheel intoxicated. The lower court judge refused to hear the evidence and convicted Newman of drunk driving. It was only after appealing the case to the Oregon Supreme Court that Newman had a chance to make his case.
Newman’s defense attorney claimed that his client had a lengthy history of sleepwalking and that driving is a similar symptom of his condition. The night of the arrest, Newman knew he would be drinking while out to dinner with friends and purposely chose to walk himself to the restaurant to meet his dinner companions. After dinner, his friends took him home where he says he went to sleep soon thereafter. It was later that night that Newman was spotted driving erratically by Portland police. Newman had his physician willing to testify about his condition and also to explain how a person who is in a sleepwalking or sleepdriving state is incapable of making voluntary decisions given that they are not actually conscious.
The Stand Your Ground law in Florida became a critical component of the recent trial of George Zimmerman who shot and killed Trayvon Martin in February of 2012. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder in the death of the teen, but argued that he acted in self-defense and should be exempt from prosecution under the state’s Stand Your Ground law. Since his acquittal, many have wondered whether similar arguments could be made if the incident had happened in North Carolina rather than Florida. Though the two states’ laws are not identical, they are very close and the result may have turned out much the same.
The campaign was an attempt by law enforcement officials to make the Independence Day holiday a safe one for North Carolinians. Though police officers say they always watch for drunk drivers, the push was especially intense over the holiday weekend because the Fourth of July is often the deadliest holiday for motorists each year. According to AAA, 20 of the 36 traffic deaths that occurred last year in North Carolina were linked to alcohol use.
Police say they were searching for Phillip Berryman for more than a month after Berryman was found to be living too close to a childcare center. Berryman is now being held under $100,00 bond and has been charged with a sex offender residence violation for living too close to a child care center. This is not the first time Berryman was arrested for a violation of his terms of release. Back in 2006 and 2008 he was jailed for failing to register with authorities. His original sex crime took place in 2005.
Police say the recent indictments were the result of a large-scale, multi-year joint federal and state investigation that targeted those responsible for manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine in Western North Carolina. The 17 people charged in the criminal enterprise were accused of conspiring to distribute, possess, distribute and manufacture more than 500 grams of methamphetamine as well as possession of pseudoephedrine.
The state Supreme Court issued a ruling on the matter this week and found that such lab tests can stand on their own if cited by an expert witness offering an independent opinion. Other have argued that this conclusion is incorrect and that a lab test should face the same amount of scrutiny that a person would face and that means the analyst who conducted the test should be required to testify at trial.
Federal prosecutors say the leader of the fake prescription ring, Joshua Balkind, is already in prison serving a 20-year term. The other two participants were sentenced to 70 months in prison this Wednesday. Officials say the scheme worked by having Balkind make fake prescriptions using software on his home computer. He would then give the fake oxycodone prescriptions to drug addicts like Rhodes and DeYoung and essentially split the take, giving the addicts several pills and taking the rest to sell on the streets at a steep markup.
The case, Peugh v. United States, concerned a man who committed bank fraud back in the late 1990s. It took a long time for his case to be tried and for a sentence to be handed down, more than 11 years in fact. By 2010, a new round of sentencing guidelines had been issued which contained a suggested sentencing range of between 70 and 87 months for Peugh’s crime. The issue was that at the time the crimes were perpetrated, the sentencing range was dramatically more lenient, only 30 to 37 months. The judge who heard the case ultimately chose a 70-month sentence, something that many believed was clearly influenced by the new guidelines.
The arrests were the result of a four-year undercover investigation into illegal hunting practices known as Operation Something Bruin. Officers with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the U.S. Forest Service worked together using social media to infiltrate poaching circles and record legal violations. The investigators created fake social media profiles and found out about illegal organized hunts on federal land.
The case involves a horrible 1992 Texas double murder case where the suspect voluntarily answered police questions for nearly an hour. However, as the police asked more incriminating questions about shotgun shells found at the scene, the suspect stopped talking. Prosecutors later used Salinas’ silence against him and portrayed it as evidence of his guilt. The strategy worked like a charm for prosecutors and Salinas was found guilty.