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 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.
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit multiple punishments for offenses when one is include within the other under the Blockburger test if both are tried at the same time and if the legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment for both offenses.
If evidence is excluded by the trial court, the proponent of the evidence generally must provide an adequate offer of proof regarding the nature of the excluded evidence in order to argue on appeal that the evidence should have been allowed. See G.S. 8C-103(a)(2).
Two or more offenses may be joined for trial when the offenses are based on the same act or transaction or on a series of acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan. See G.S. 15A-926(a).
A court may permit a defendant who moves to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing to withdraw the plea only when it is necessary to avoid manifest injustice.