North Carolina: Criminal Procedure - Case Study Example

North Carolina: Criminal Procedure The fundamental problem facing any society is how to control the actions of individuals that threaten the life, liberty, and property of other individuals as well as society’s collective interests of order, peace, decency and safety. Law is a formal means of achieving social control. In general, law can be defined as a body of rules prescribed and enforced by government for the regulation and protection of the society (Schebb, 1999). A person cannot be convicted of a crime unless he or she committed a specific offense against a law that provides for penalty. This principle is expressed in the maxim ‘Nullen Crimen, Nulla Poena, Sine Lege’, a Latin phrase which means ‘there is no crime, there is no punishment, without law’ (Schebb, 1999). Criminal law distinguishes between serious crimes, known as felonies, and less serious offenses, called misdemeanors. Generally speaking, felonies are offenses for which the offender can be imprisoned for more than one year. Common examples of felonies include murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, assault with a deadly weapon, robbery and grand larceny (Mitchell 2008). The common law developed a doctrine where an accused is engaged in the commission of a felony and a homicide occurs, the felonious act is regarded as a substitute for the proof of malice aforethought required finding the defendant guilty of murder. Thus, it becomes felony murder where an accused unintentionally killed a human being while committing or attempting to commit, such common-law felonies as burglary, arson, rape, or robbery. The theory is that if a killing resulted, even though unintentional or accidental, the required malice is carried over from the original felony. Consequently, the felon would be found guilty of murder (Schebb, 1999). Although of dubious ancestry, the felony murder doctrine has been incorporated into most criminal codes in the United States even in North Carolina (Hall, 2000). With the proliferation of crimes classified as felonies, legislatures have generally limited its applicability to felonies, involving violence or posing great threat to life or limb. Felony murder statutes have produced much litigation in the criminal courts (Hall, 2000). Some of the question raised include-can a felon ho perpetrate an offense be guilty of felony murder where the victim of the intended offense kills a co-felon or -should the felon committing a crime such as robbery be guilty of felony murder if a police officer mistakenly kills the felon’s intended victim? And -can a felon be guilty of felony murder when a co-felon accidentally kills a bystander or a police officer? (Hall, 2000) Most courts have held that the doctrine of felony murder does not extend to a killing stemming from the commission of the felony if it is directly attributable to the act of someone other than the defendant in the unlawful enterprise. Nevertheless, courts have arrived at different solutions to these and the other problems of felony murder laws (Cook 1996). Perhaps, questions such as these led the Michigan supreme court in 1980 to abrogate the felony murder doctrine. After commenting on how its prior decisions had already significantly restricted the doctrine, the court included that the rule that the substitutes the intent to commit the underlying felony for the not make irrelevant the fact that a death occurred in the course of a felony. Rather, the court noted that a jury can properly infer malice from evidence that a defendant intentionally sets in motion a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Michigan juries, however, are no longer required to find malice if they are satisfied from all the evidence that it does exist (Hall 2000). A cogent argument can be made that the felony murder rule violates the basic requirement of moral culpability in the criminal law. Moreover, critics of the doctrine point out that under the early common law, conviction of a felony was punishable by death. Consequently, they note, when a death occurred in the commission of a felony and the accused is guilty of a felony murder, and no additional consequences resulted (ADO, 2003). Not so today, because no felony except for murder committed under aggravating circumstances is punishable by death. Nevertheless, the felony murder doctrine is well established in most jurisdictions. With legislatures perceiving the need to take a “hard line” on crime, it is doubtful that many will be motivated to repeal felony murder statutes (ADO, 2003). Courts, therefore, will most likely becoming increasingly conscious of the need to strictly interpret such statutes. Observing that it is the commission of a specified felony that supplants the requirement of premeditation for first-degree murder, the Florida Supreme Court and is now being considered by the Higher Courts of North Carolina to declare that for a felon to be guilty of felony murder there must be a causal connection between the homicide and the underlying felony (ADO 2003). Eve Maria Carson, a student at the University of North Carolina, was shot and killed in the morning of March 5, 2008 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. The Federal authorities are planning to seek the death penalty for one of the men who were charged of killing the former student body president. It was announced that James Atwater is facing the possibility of a death sentence, both in state and federal trials (Zambers, 2008). Authorities have found out the Atwater, 22, and Lawrence Lovette, 18, kidnapped Carson and drove her to an ATM machine to withdraw, amounting to $1,400 and shot her early March 5, 2008 at East Franklin Street (Zambers, 2008). Lovette, who is 17 at the time of the crime, has not been indicted on federal charges, and that cannot be sentenced to death because of his age. A criminal procedure, as a field of law, describes the methods used in bringing an alleged criminal to justice. In other words, criminal procedure puts substantive criminal law into action. Each state and the federal government have its own procedural rules. In some instances, the variation is significant. The first part of the process begins when law enforcement officers learn of a crime that has been committed (Cook 1996). For instance, the Carson case officially started in March 5, 2008 when the police found her body at East Franklin Street, thus the pre-arrest investigation begins. There are two objectives of this process, first, police must determine whether a crime has been committed and second, if a crime has been committed, police attempt to gather sufficient evidence to charge and convict the person believed to be guilty (Zambers, 2008). Once this process is done and there is adequate evidence, on March 13, 2008, both Atwater and Lovette were arrested for the murder of Carson. At the time of the arrest, the police searched the defendants and once they were at the police station, they were booked. Booking refers to obtaining biographical information about the defendant, fingerprinting, and taking the defendants’ photos, commonly known as the mug shot, and they are allowed to make a telephone call. The information gathered by this pretrial service or probation office will be used to aid a judge to decide if she will release the defendant before the trial begins or if she will impose conditions of release (Hall, 2000). Defendants at this point are held in jail until further arrangements are made. In cases of felony, suspects must wait for a judge to set a bail amount at an initial appearance. During and after this stage, police officers continue to investigate and gather evidences (Hall, 2000). The next step of the process is the complaint. At this stage, a police officer or a prosecutor files a complaint, which acts as the charging instrument. The complaint need not be written based on personal knowledge. The police officer may use hearsay and circumstantial evidence in a complaint. If the defendant s arrested in a federal complaint or arrest warrant, the person must be taken to the nearest available federal magistrate without unreasonable delay and in any event, it should be done within 24 hours. After the magistrate reviews the nature of the charges and assures that the defendant is told his rights and the nature of the punishment applicable to the crime alleged. At the time of this appearance, after due consideration of the pretrial report, the magistrate will set conditions of release or more known as bail. If in any case the prosecutor is looking forward to have the accused person detained in jail before the trial starts the court may conduct a detention hearing to see whether the person should be allowed to be released or if he would stay in jail (Hall, 2000). In most cases, defendants are released prior to the trial. Pretrial detention may not be used to punish a person (ADO 2003). To do so violates a person’s due process right to be free from punishment without a fair trial. However, a defendant may be detained if there is reason to believe that he or she will not appear for trial of if he or she poses a threat to others. After the detention hearing, the Court will enter a written scheduling order directing certain procedures in the case. More of often than not, the time periods in the scheduling order are very short. For instance, this scheduling order will usually direct the defense attorney and the prosecutor to meet within a specific period of time for a discovery conference. In that specific conference, the government attorney is responsible of providing certain limited written information to the attorney for the defendant wherein the written letter describes the nature of the case against the defendant and shows information which concerns the evidence against the suspect. Moreover, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure necessitates that a defendant reveal certain information such as notice of intent to use an alibi defense. In case that the defendant’s side fails to provide such notice regarding the intent to use such a defense as alibi or insanity may preclude its use at trial (Schebb, 1999). Moreover, the Court’s scheduling order commonly directs the filing of motions. Motions are written requests and or maybe defenses which must be backed up by a written memorandum of law or brief which asks the Court to create rulings which could affect whether the case will be tried or how it would be tried. For instance, the defense attorneys usually file a motion to sup-press evidence, which asks the court to leave out the trial evidence that the suspect believes was gotten hold off by the government in violation of his or her constitutional rights (Mitchell 2008). A strict deadline will be set by the scheduling order for the filling of the following motions: the motion to dismiss; motions for technicalities such as change of venue; motions challenging the array of the grand jury and other motions challenging the charges. Also, there is a specific time that the scheduling order sets wherein responses to these motions should be done (Schebb, 1999). The preliminary hearing is the second time where the defendant will stand before a judge. At this stage, the court determines if probable cause to believe the accused committed the crime exists. If probable cause is found, the defendant is bound to the next stage of the process. The next stage is either trial or review by grand jury. If probable cause was not established, the defendant is released. For the case of Atwater and Lovette, probable cause was established. This hearing can be quite lengthy compared to a defendant’s initial appearance. Witnesses are called and the attorneys are allowed to make arguments. Rules of evidence are applied in modified form, so hearsay and illegally obtained evidence are often considered (Hall, 2000). After the formal charge has been filed, the defendant is brought to the trial court for arraignment. This is the hearing at which the defendant is read the formal charge and is asked to enter a plea. They may plead guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere. By pleading guilty a defendant admits all the charges contained in the charging document, unless a plea agreement has been reached with the government. A plea bargain is the product of negotiations between the prosecutor and the defendant (Hall, 2000). In cases in the federal courts a defendant may petition a sentence even if she or he has gone into a plea of guilty (except if he or she has particularly surrendered his or her right to appeal). Procedures in appeals are administered under specific rules which are very complex. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the government. Defendants do not have to establish their innocence. In its place, the government must supply evidence to persuade the jury of the defendant’s guilt. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is attestation "beyond a reasonable doubt," which means the evidence have got to be so strong that there is no rational doubt that the defendant committed the crime (Hall, 2000). If a defendant is established as not guilty, the defendant will be freed and the government is not permitted to appeal. Similarly, the person cleared cannot be charged again with the same crime in a federal court. The Constitution prohibits "double jeopardy," or being tried twice for the same offense. In essence, the sentence which will be imposed in case the defendant is found guilty is determined by the application of the federal sentencing guidelines to settle on the applicable choice of sentence. Stating it simply, the sentence will be founded on the criminal’s history and the applicable base offense level, adjusted upwards or downwards basing on factors such as acceptance of responsibility, offense and offender characteristics and the like (Mitchell 2008). A sentence may comprise of time in prison, the amount to be paid to the government and restitution paid to crime victims. References Administrative Office of the Courts (2003). Judicial System in North Carolina. Cook, P. (1996). The cost of processing murder cases in North Carolina. A paper presented to the State Justice Institute Hall, D. (2000). Criminal Law and Procedure. USA: Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Mitchell, R. (2008). Overview of Procedures in a Felony Case. Retrieved August 2008 from < www.uscourts.gov/UFC99.pdf> Schebb, M. (1999). American Criminal Law. Opperman: West Publishing Company Zambers, C. (2008). Duke Grad Student Shot in Head. Retrieved August 2008 from < http://www.newsobserver.com/2811/story/999905.html> Read More