Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog

North Carolina Prostitution Ringleader Faces Justice

Published on: January 19, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Post #2 criminal image 1.19.jpg WBTV.com recently reported about the leader of a prostitution ring in Charlotte, North Carolina being arrested and charged with several charges related to interstate human trafficking. Filemon Guzman-Martinez pleaded guilty to “transporting individuals in interstate commerce for prostitution, enticing individuals to travel in interstate commerce for prostitution, and unlawful transportation of an alien.”

Court documents indicate that from February to October of 2011, Guzman-Martinez converted a residence into a brothel where sex workers performed sexual acts for $25.00 per act. The residence was located at 5726 Southampton Road. It was reported that Guzman-Martinez offered potential customers business cards with his cell phone number and pictures of the available women. The customers would then call the number on the business card and be set up with a date for the evening.

Of the $25.00 service fee, Guzman-Martinez took $10.00 and the woman received the remaining $15.00. The women came from several different states. They agreed to stay with Guzman-Martinez for one week at a time and were then transported to other locations to work as prostitutes. It was customary for women to see eight to ten men per day.

The U.S. Attorney made a statement about the federal government’s position on sex trafficking: “Sex trafficking is a horrible crime that treats sex as a commodity and exploits vulnerable persons for financial benefit,” said U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins. “This case provides a window into the underground world of sex trafficking and shows that it happens in communities like ours. My office is committed to the aggressive prosecution of all sex trafficking cases, and I call upon the public to report any suspicious activity that may help us apprehend and prosecute those engaged in these crimes.”

The federal government is not being easy on those caught committing sex trafficking. Guzman-Martinez could be sentenced to up to 40 years in prison depending on how the U.S. Attorney and the federal judge calculate his sentencing. Defendants who are facing federal criminal charges will likely plead guilty to the crime of which they are accused. As such, an experienced North Carolina criminal defense attorney is necessary to negotiate the proper plea agreement with the federal government.

North Carolina Pregnant Woman’s Accused Killer Apprehended

Published on: January 18, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Post #1 criminal .17.12.jpg A North Carolina man accused of murdering a pregnant woman has been arrested, according to a report by WCNC.com. The victim was 25-year-old Danielle Marie Watson and she was the manager at a local restaurant, the Flying Biscuit. Police say that Watson was stabbed to death in the kitchen of the restaurant by 22-year-old Mark Anthony Cox. At the time of her death, Watson was 2 months pregnant and was planning on getting married to her fiancé.

The Charlotte Violent Criminal Apprehension Team along with the Fayetteville Police arrested Cox at a friend’s apartment in on the outskirts of Fayetteville, North Carolina. The victim’s car was found in the parking lot of an apartment complex near the friend’s apartment.

In addition to Cox being charged with two possible counts of murder, the 911 operator has been placed on administrative leave. Apparently there was some confusion regarding the location of the call. The victim’s fiancé, Keith Smith, called in the emergency to authorities. The 911 operator sent the police to the wrong address. However, when the staff at NewsChannel 36 listened to the 911 tape, it sound like the caller gave the operator the wrong address. The authorities are suggesting that the administrative leave is simply a precaution to investigate whether the 911 operator followed the proper protocols for ensuring that accurate information was given to the police. There has been no mention of whether having the police go to the wrong address may have made a difference in whether the victim survived her injuries.

As was previously mentioned, the accused could be facing two counts of murder. We posted previously about the passage of North Carolina’s Unborn Victim’s Act, which allows the state to charge a defendant with murder if he or she causes the death of a fetus no matter how far along the woman is in the pregnancy (except in cases of abortion). That law went into effect in December, therefore, Cox comes within the confines of the new law and could be facing two counts of murder because Watson was pregnant at the time of her death.

Watson’s family is relieved that the potential defendant has been caught and is ready to put this tragedy to rest. After being informed about the arrest, Smith, Watson’s fiancé, told NewsChannel 36, “I feel much better knowing that they found him. I spoke with her mom, and the family is ecstatic. They are very happy she actually said it’s a huge burden lifted off her heart that they found him.”

North Carolina Sex Offender Arrested for Two 30-year-old Rapes

Published on: January 12, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Post #2 criminal image 1.12.12.jpg The victims of two 30-year-old rape cases are now on their way to seeing justice decades after their harrowing experiences. According to a recent report by WBTV, a man has been arrested for the rape of two women back in 1981.

The detectives of the Sexual Assault Cold Case Unit at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department were able to find the suspect, Roger Dale Honeycutt, after re-examining biological evidence taken from the rape kits 30 years ago. On January 27, 1981, detectives allege that Honeycutt entered a home in the 3400 block of Sharon Amity Road. When he got in, she saw a woman asleep on the couch and he raped her. After the assault, the woman was taken to Carolina Medical Center. There, a sexual assault kit was performed and biological evidence was collected from the victim. The cold case detectives began to reexamine the case in December 2011, and on December 8, 2011, the detectives submitted the sexual assault kit to the crime lab for a second examination of the evidence. Nearly one month later, the detectives were notified that the lab had a match and that it was Honeycutt.

Honeycutt was arrested at his home in Kannapolis by the Violent Criminal Apprehension Team. What is unique about Honeycutt’s arrest is that at the time he was free on bond for another rape. In October 2010, Honeycutt was arrested and charged with another rape that happened back in 1981. Police say that on February 21, 1981, Honeycutt broke into a woman’s house, found her sleeping on the couch and raped her. Nearly one month after the first rape was committed, Honeycutt allegedly followed the same pattern and committed a second sexual assault. The victim of this second assault was five months pregnant at the time of the attack and her husband and daughter were asleep in the home while she was being raped. A sexual assault kit was also performed on the victim and there were no suspects until August 2010, when Honeycutt was found to be a match to the biological evidence collected from the sexual assault kit.

Redefining Rape in North Carolina

Published on: January 10, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Post #2 criminal image 1.10.12.png On January 6, 2012, the federal government took an important progressive step in the realm of sexual violence legislation. It has expanded the definition of rape. The new definition removes the gendered language and now includes the sexual violation of men and boys. Rape was previously defined by the federal government as “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

This limited definition only allows women and girls to be sexually violated and it only included penetration by a man’s penis, but did not include penetration by other objects or body parts. It suggests that if something similar happened to a man or a boy, it is not rape, but something entirely different. The new definition, however, is much more expansive. It defines rape as “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” This new definition makes the crime of “rape” apply to the sexual penetration of a boy or man.

The change will make the FBI’s reporting of rape statistics easier, especially since several states now have a more expanded definition of rape. The old definition created discrepancies in the number of rapes reported each year. According to a report by Forbes Magazine, 1,400 sexual assaults were reported in Chicago, but the government did not count those in the total amount of rapes reported because those sexual assaults did not meet the very restrictive definition of “rape.”

In addition to streamlining statistics, the newly expanded definition of the crime of rape does something else very important. It starts to change the conversation regarding sexual violence and begins the process of removing the gendered stereotypes associated with the crime of rape. It has always been assumed that men cannot be raped. However, hundreds of men are sexually violated on a regular basis, but because of societal views men have had a difficult time reporting that a crime of sexual violence was committed against them. It is likely that the number of reported rapes will increase not only because of the expanded definition, but also because men and boys will begin to feel more comfortable telling these stories without the fear of social stigma.

Tainted Charlotte Officer Hit with New Allegations

Published on: January 6, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Post #2 criminal image 1.6.12.png In a story that hits close to home at Arnold & Smith, PLLC, a recent report by the Charlotte Observer , discusses how troubled Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Officer David Jones, III, is now facing new allegations from a suspect who has claimed that he was assaulted by the officer.

This newest allegation comes from Thomas Huminik. Huminik claims that in September of 2011, he was assaulted by Officer Jones after Jones responded to a call at a bank. Huminik and his wife were going through a bitter divorce and somehow ended up at the same bank at the same time. Once Huminik arrived at the bank, his wife called the police. Jones was one of the responding officers. Huminik claims that once he was outside of the bank, he was assaulted by Jones and another officer. His lawyer, Brad Smith, alleges that Huminik was punched, kicked, and thrown to the ground and none of those actions were justified. There is a surveillance video from the bank that shows the officers escorting Huminik out of the bank and seems to show that the officers are wrestling with Huminik.

As a result of that incident, Huminik was charged with assaulting an officer, communicating threats, and resisting arrest. However, all of those charges were recently dropped by the District Attorney. As it turns out Officer Jones is no stranger to controversy at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. In December, he was suspended and recommended for termination after he assaulted a man named Rick McVicker who rear-ended Jones’ mother. Jones’ mother called him to assist her with the accident and once he arrived on the scene he got into a physical altercation with McVicker, which according to McVicker, resulted in Jones slamming his head into the ground.

North Carolina Protestors Charged with Burning Flag

Published on: January 4, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Four men have been charged with careless use of fire after a flag burning incident during an Occupy Charlotte protest. According to the Charlotte Observer, two American flags were burned outside of the campsite in protest of what the protestors labeled “American greed.”

Police say that the suspects were charged because they failed to use a fire pit to burn the flags. Those arrested were 19-year-old Alex Tyler, 20-year-old Stephen Morris, 23-year-old Michael Behrle, and 28-year-old Jason Bargert. Bargert, was acting as the spokesperson for the Occupy Charlotte movement.

Tyler said that the purpose of the flag burning was to send sparks through the camp. “I’ve seen this group lose its activism and become lazy,” said Tyler, adding that the other men told him, “We’re going to give Occupy Charlotte a wake-up call.” Well, the protestors got their wish. The movement is now divided over the incident. Several members thought that burning the flag was unnecessary and disrespectful and at least 10 members of the movement have issued formal statements disassociating themselves from the flag-burning episode. There was even some debate about expelling the men from the group. As of yet, there has been no word of whether the four protestors are still a part of the Occupy Charlotte movement.

Occupy Charlotte is part of the nationwide Occupy movement that began with Occupy Wall Street in September. According to Occupy Wall Street’s official website, the purpose of the movement is to protest against banks and corporations that they believe have led to the economic collapse of the nation. Occupy Wall Street has led to several similar occupy movements across the country, including Occupy Charlotte. Occupy Charlotte is following in the footsteps of the pioneers on Wall Street.

Gun Permits for Felons in North Carolina on the Rise

Published on: December 29, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Post #2 criminal image.jpg The Charlotte Observer recently published a report by the New York Times about the rise in the number of concealed carry permits. The report recounts an incident where an Asheville, North Carolina man had a hair-raising experience with the driver of an SUV.

Alan Simmons and his family were riding bicycles down the road when they were approached by a driver in an SUV. The driver was visibly upset with Simmons because he was riding his bike in the street. Simmons stopped and so did the driver. The two got into a verbal altercation, but the driver of the SUV, Charles Diez, pulled out a gun and threatened to shoot Simmons. When Simmons turned to leave, Diez fired, but the bullet passed through his helmet barely missing his head.

Diez was legally allowed to carry that weapon. He was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and Simmons believes that that is the reason why a verbal altercation nearly turned deadly. Diez was eventually arrested and he pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. The problem is not with the number of permits that are now being allowed across the country. The problem is the ease with which one can obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. North Carolina is one of many states that only requires a simple background check before allowing someone to obtain a concealed carry permit.

In addition to the ease of obtaining the permit, gun advocates are seeking to increase the places where guns are allowed. In the recent past, guns have been taken off of the banned list for bars, houses of worship, and college campuses. The argument in favor of increasing the presence of guns in public places is that gun owners should be allowed to protect themselves when they are out and about.

“These are people who have proven themselves to be among the most responsible and safe members of our community,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida. Rep. Stearns wrote a bill that would require states to recognize other state’s gun permits, extending the Full Faith and Credit Clause to gun permits. The House has already approved the bill and the Senate is expected to consider it next year.

The New York Times conducted an investigation into North Carolina’s concealed weapons permit holders. The investigation revealed that several of North Carolina’s permit holders had been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors. In several of these cases, the state did not pull the gun permit from those convicted.

Charlotte Murder-Suicide Prompts Investigation

Published on: December 27, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Post #1 criminal image.png According to a recent report by WCNC, Charlotte-Mecklenburg police are investigating a murder-suicide that happened earlier in the month. Police were called to the home of 32-year-old Stephanie Ott to assist the fire department with a forced entry into the home. When the policemen and firefighters successfully entered to the home, they found Ott dead. They also found that the floors and the furniture had been soaked in gasoline. The fire department was called initially because a pile of debris and an abandoned car were burning on the side of the house.

Following the discovery of Ott’s body, the police canvassed the neighborhood trying to determine what happened and attempting to find the suspect. In a neighbor’s shed, they found the owner of the house that Ott lived in, 52-year-old Robert Stover. He had barricaded himself inside and a few moments after being confronted by police, Stover committed suicide inside of the shed.

The initial investigation of the crime revealed that Ott and Stover had been having problems. They were roommates and neighbors told police that Stover had been trying to get Ott to leave his home, but he had been unsuccessful. Ott had only been living with Stover for a few months prior to her death, but from the time she moved in there were problems. The neighbor across the street, Oscard Villegas said, “Every time they argue they bring it outside. . . . Even when they’re inside they scream at the top of their lungs.”

Neighbors spoke highly of Stover, saying that he was a good neighbor, considerate, and willing to help when needed. Daniel Koontz, a student at UNCC who lived next door said that Stover brought him a basket of tomatoes when he first moved into the neighborhood. Villegas told WCNC that Stover would give him and his father rides the store when their car was broken down. However, not everything was as nice at it seemed.

Man Found Guilty in Death of UNC Student

Published on: December 23, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

WRAL recently reported that a North Carolina jury has found Laurence Lovette, Jr. guilty of murder in the tragic 2008 shooting death of Eve Carson, a UNC Chapel Hill student who was brutally murdered. In the prosecution’s closing argument, they told the victm’s story. She was kidnapped at gunpoint near her home and was held for several hours. Lovette and another individual stuffed her in her own car and drove her to two separate ATMs. Lovette then took a total of $700.00 from her bank account.

The prosecution told the jury that there was overwhelming evidence against Lovette. He was seen by surveillance cameras near the scene of the crime just a few minutes before Carson was kidnapped. Lovette was also caught by the ATMs’ security cameras while he was withdrawing money from Carson’s account.

In addition to being found guilty of first-degree murder, Lovette was also convicted of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree armed robbery, felonious larceny, and felonious possession of stolen goods. For the murder conviction, he will spend the rest of his life in prison. The sentences for the other charges are to run consecutively with the life sentence. Thus, there is no possibility of Lovette being released from prison.

His attorneys tried to explain to the jury during sentencing that Lovette had a difficult childhood. His father died at age 13 and by age 17 he was on his way to becoming a hardened criminal. Defense attorney Karen Bethea-Shields said that her client is very compassionate despite the prosecution’s claims that he is a callous cold-hearted killer. She said, “He has a very close-knit family, and it’s very difficult for his family… He knows that, and he worries about his mother and sisters. He’s grown a lot since 2008, and he has plans, even now when he goes to prison, to get his education degrees and keep on doing what he needs to do to make himself better.”

Governor Perdue Exercises Veto Power on North Carolina Death Row Bill

Published on: December 20, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to the Charlotte Observer, Republican lawmakers recently introduced a bill in the North Carolina legislature that would have brought an end to a two-year death penalty law.

The current state of the North Carolina death penalty jurisprudence allows death row inmates to use racial statistics to demonstrate that there was racial bias in their death sentences. The new law proposed by Republican lawmakers would have prevented death row inmates from utilizing these racial statistics, but Governor Perdue vetoed that bill.

It is unlikely that this veto will be overridden. The Republicans need five Democrats to come to their aide to override the veto and garnering that support is likely impossible. Governor Perdue’s veto keeps the Racial Justice Act effective as North Carolina law, which permits the introduction of statistics to bolster an inmate’s claim that his or her death sentence was racially biased. It began with a Michigan study that shows that the killers of white victims are more than two times more likely to receive a death sentence than the killers of black victims.

The Michigan study was informed by the Baldus study, a famous study that was used as evidence in McClesky v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).

In that case, the defendant attempted to use racial statistics as evidence that the death penalty was racially biased. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the defendant’s argument and said that discriminatory impact of the death penalty is not the same as discriminatory intent and intent is what is admissible as evidence. North Carolina’s death penalty law provides more protection than the Supreme Court’s federal law, which is permissible under the United States Constitution. Constitutional law provides the floor, not the ceiling, for protection of individual liberties.

Governor Perdue’s exercise of her veto power is probably going to cost her as she defends office next election. While she stressed that she remains in favor of the death penalty, she also noted that it is “important to ensure prosecutions and sentences are not tainted by racial prejudice.” Governor Perdue’s tough-on-crime stance took a hit when she vetoed this bill and she is going to have to do a lot of work to make sure that combats the criticism she will surely face as a result of her decision.

Dealing with the death penalty comes at the end of a long and arduous trial process. After two separate trials to first determine guilt and then determine the implementation of the death penalty, then comes the mandatory appellate process that can drag on for several more years.