Jan 18, 2013 | Burglary/Robbery/Larceny, Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
Gastonia Police are charging two individuals in a case of larceny and attempted fraud with a credit card.
A Gastonia woman reported four of her credit cards stolen on Dec. 18, and suspects attempted to use the stolen credit cards that same day at Target on Cox Road, where their images were captured on surveillance video, according to the Gastonia Police Department.
If you or someone you know has criminal charges being brought against them in North or South Carolina, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower, LLP to consult with one of our criminal attorneys. We handle many different types of criminal cases, including but not limited to, drug related offenses, driving under the influence (DUI), and robbery. Our criminal attorneys want to help you or someone you know with the difficulties you may encounter with your case. We are licensed in both North Carolina and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Jan 18, 2013 | Car Accidents, DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Personal Injury, Uncategorized
Officers are still recovering in the hospital after being struck by impaired drivers in separate incidents at the same location last night.
The first incident happened on Saturday night around 11:30 when two officers from the Providence Division Reinke and Wassenaar were outbound on Independence at Eastway Drive working the scene of a vehicular accident when an intoxicated driver failed to heed the officer’s emergency lights and struck both officers. The second incident happened at about 2:00 a.m. when another office of the Eastway Division was on scene to handle traffic from the previous accident and was struck while in his patrol car by a separate intoxicated driver. Both drivers are being charged with felony serious injury by vehicle and DWI.
Any type of DWI case is a serious matter. Contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower, LLP to consult with a criminal attorney about any robbery charges. Our DWI attorneys want to help you or someone you might know with his/her DWI case. We also handle other various different types of criminal cases in North Carolina and South Carolina. We are licensed in both North Carolina and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Jan 18, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Felony Drug Possession, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, Uncategorized
Four men were arrested on drug charges after a joint investigation into a multi-county drug operation, according to the Union County Sheriff’s Office. Detectives with the Union County Sheriff’s Office arrested three men in the county, charging them with trafficking controlled substances and felony conspiracy. A fourth man was arrested in Moore County, deputies said.
Wednesday night, the Moore County Sheriff’s office contacted authorities in Union County after an undercover drug investigation there led to the arrest of a man from Union County. Subsequently, Moore County officers provided Union County deputies with evidence of drug trafficking occurring at two residences from this arrest. Authorities searched a home in Monroe Wednesday night, gathering information and seizing drug paraphernalia in the process. A similar search was conducted simultaneously on a residence in Marshville, where Sheriff’s Deputies took two men into custody and seized over one pound of crystal methamphetamine, $8,975 in cash, three handguns, and one rifle.
As the investigation continued to unfold overnight, officers were led to draw a search warrant for a third residence located north of Marshville, the report states. Officers seized 745 lbs. of marijuana and four firearms at this residence and took one man into custody there as well. If you or a loved one has been charged with a drug crime, cont act the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to consult with a criminal attorney about these charges. We understand the hardship that accompanies any criminal case. Our criminal attorneys know your rights and want to help you or someone you might know with his/her drug related charges in North or South Carolina. We are licensed in both North Carolina and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Nov 27, 2012 | Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Felony Drug Possession, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, Uncategorized
In the state of North Carolina, “it is a crime to knowingly sell or deliver a controlled substance to another person.” G.S. 90-95(a)(1). Moreover, pursuant to G.S. 90-95(b)(2), the delivery of marijuana is a Class 1 Felony, as it falls into the Schedule VI “controlled substance” category. Id. This statute further illustrates that it will not considered “a delivery to transfer for no remuneration less than 5 grams of marijuana, or less than 2.5 grams of synthetic cannabinoid, or any mixture of the two. Id. This portion of the statute is typically referred to as the “pot exception” within various circles.
Now the question remains; what does remuneration mean? Simply put, remuneration is the exchange of money for a service. This statute makes it so that if there is not an exchange of currency, and the amount of marijuana is less than 5 grams, the charge will not be a delivery of marijuana. It would still be regarded as a possession charge, however. This usually would apply when friends are sharing a marijuana cigarette, or “joint” and it is being exchanged from one person to the other. As long as the “joint” is less than 5 grams, they will not be charged with delivery.
The recent North Carolina decision, State v. Land, addresses a couple of issues regarding this offense. This case involved a defendant who gave an officer about 2 grams of marijuana. He was charged with delivery of marijuana. After being convicted, the man appealed, arguing that the indictment was defective due to the fact that it failed to allege an essential element of the offense. He stated that he was charged with delivery of less than 5 grams of marijuana. The problem with the indictment was that remuneration was not alleged. The majority rejected this argument citing State v. Pevia, 56 N.C. App. 384, 387 (1982). This case creates a single offense of delivery of a controlled substance, with no separate offense of delivery of marijuana.
The court concluded that under Pevia, the State can prove delivery of marijuana with evidence either (1) of transfer of 5 or more grams of marijuana, or (2) of a transfer of less than 5 grams for remuneration. Id. It further stated that “since the methods of proof set out in G.S. 90-95(b)(2) are mere evidentiary matters, they need not be included in the indictment.” Id. However, all three judges agreed that the trial court did err by failing to instruct the jury that a transfer of less than 5 grams of marijuana for no remuneration is not delivery. Id. The jury concluded that, because of the small amount of marijuana involved, the State was required to prove that defendant transferred the marijuana for remuneration. Id.
This question will likely be heard by the Supreme Court of North Carolina on the matter of the indictment. If you or someone close to you has been charged with a similar marijuana related charge, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP. You can schedule a consultation with one of our professionals by calling our Charlotte, North Carolina office at 704-499-9000, or toll-free at 877-374-5999.
Jul 31, 2012 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
The South Carolina Court of Appeals revisited a three common criminal issues in the recent case State v. Mitchell. In this interesting case involving charges of first-degree burglary, possession of burglary tools, and petit larcency, Mitchell allegedly broke into a house. There were no eye-witnesses, and the only evidence linking Mitchell to the scene was (oddly) footage from a deer camera (you know, like you put by deer corn, for hunting) that the victim homeowner had installed on top of the refrigerator out of fear of burglars, showing the face and body of the person who broke into the house. Before trial Mitchell argued that:
- The photos from the deer camera was inadmissible under rules 1001, 1002, and 1003 SCRE. The photos were not original, and the photos had a shady chain of custody, couldn’t be read by police computers, and came not directly from the camera, but from a disk on to which it was copied by victim homeowner’s computer.
- The police officer’s lay testimony identifying the person in the photos as the defendant, Mitchell, should be inadmissible under rules 403 and 701 SCRE.
The trial court did not allow either of these motions in limine or during the trial. Mitchell moved for a post-trial motion for a new trial. The trial court denied. Mitchell appealed on all issues, but abandoned, perhaps accidentally, the chain of custody issue.
Police Officer’s Testimony Identifying Defendant in the Photos
The part of this ruling that may most affect future defendants is the court’s endorsement of allowing police officers to give lay testimony identifying a defendant in photos. The relevant rules:
Rule 701, SCRE: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which (a) are rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) do not require special knowledge, skill, experience or training.
Rule 704, SCRE: Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
Rule 403, SCRE: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
The ruling is not altogether surprising, but when photos are grainy and unclear, a police officer’s relatively uninformed, and often biased, opinion as to who is in the photos could mean the difference between a guilty and not guilty verdict. Generally, allowing witnesses to identify individuals in photos and videos is justified by the increased knowledge of a person’s appearance, but no such justification is available for this case. For this reason, one expects that a judge concerned about the lack of identifying evidence (given that the video is of poor quality, that the police officer has no special knowledge of the appearance of the defendant, and the jury should be as capable of identifying the person in the video as the police officer) might rule that the evidence is excludable under Rule 403, since the police officer’s authority may prejudice the issue more than actually prove the issue.
Authentication of the Disk Containing the Photos from the Deer Camera
Since the court did not really examine the chain of custody problem, and the standard of review (abuse of discretion), the court’s position on the issue boils down to a straightforward reading and application of the rule: “If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an ‘original’.” The originals were admitted because they were merely print-outs of computer data that was copied from the victim’s camera to the victim’s computer to the victim’s disk given to the police. Since the proper foundation was laid as to the disk, they were admissible under this standard of review.
Motion for New Trial
Mitchell contended that since the jury found him not guilty of petit larcency an element of first-degree burglary, intent to steal, was not met.
The court recites that the standard for granting a new trial relies on an abuse of discretion, which the South Carolina Supreme Court has held to mean that no new trial will be granted by an appellate court unless no competent evidence supports the conviction.
Mitchell’s contention that the petit larceny verdict was inconsistent with the first-degree burglary verdict was bound to fail because the South Carolina Supreme Court abandoned the inconsistent verdict theory in State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 383, 401 S.E.2d 146, 150 (1991).
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know has been charged with any crime, call the experienced South Carolina criminal defense attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower at 877-374-5999, or use this form, for a free consultation with an attorney. We’ll help you evaluate your options and develop your best defense to get you the best results possible.
