NC Criminal Law
In Part I of this three-part series revisiting Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358 (1994), I explored the district attorney’s calendaring practices that were challenged in the landmark case, and I discussed the first of three major issues: pretrial delays for tactical advantage. In this second part, I will explore the second major issue: trial orders that lack “order.”
...
The state has a constitutional duty under the due process clause to disclose to the defendant any material evidence that is favorable to the defense for a trial or sentencing hearing. This duty applies in misdemeanor and felony cases.
The court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that are not subject to any reasonable dispute if the facts are common knowledge in the jurisdiction or can be easily determined by reference to reliable sources.
The court is not bound by the rules of evidence (except for rules on privilege) when deciding whether challenged evidence is admissible.
A trial judge may permit any party to introduce additional evidence at any time before verdict. See G.S. 15A-1226(b).
The key question for double jeopardy analysis is whether each offense requires proof of an element that is not contained in the other — if not, they are the same offense and double jeopardy bars a successive prosecution.