Search Results

Welcome back to Case Law Corner, where we take a monthly dive into new and significant case law affecting The Court found that the procedures used in Gault's case met none of these requirements. The case went to trial and the court found Jones guilty of robbery in the first degree. Virginia, a case that dealt with the execution of the mentally disabled. After the U.S. The Court’s analysis in that case was based on precedent that established that the Constitution treats

Issues Affecting Youth: While this case didn’t address a delinquency issue directly, it is likely the case. While the Court of Appeals found that none of the exceptions applied in this case, Defenders should take “[A] case is capable of repetition, yet evades review, when: (1) the challenged conduct is too fleeting Indeed, we regularly review juvenile-custody cases.” (all internal citations omitted)

Welcome to the December edition of Case Law Corner! from Assistant Appellate Defender David Andrews with tips on properly appealing cases. “As the dissenting judge, I will not attempt to reconcile years of arguably inconsistent case law and at the end of today’s Case Law Corner! You can find an appellate entries for delinquency cases here.

aspects to the judicial system, we must recognize the significant impact it can have in juvenile court cases social media or making statements to the press regarding a client’s personal information and their cases We need to be aware of the ethical rules regarding social media case exposure along with the procedures utilizes that page to make information about specific cases public? in cases ranging from murder to breaking and entering.

Over the last few months, the Office of the Juvenile Defender has updated and revised our case list in The cases remain grouped by topic, but this will save counsel time in finding relevant issues. Third and foremost, each summary now includes a statement of law distilled from the case. As in years past, the case compendium is intended to be a living and breathing document, so updates will You can access the compendium on our website by clicking Case Law on the Information for Defenders Page

The juvenile was charged with committing common law robbery. In the present case, although the juvenile purported to appeal from the dispositional order as well, In the present case, the Court found that adjudication order met each of the aforementioned requirements

In the present case, however, the Court determined that the “Juvenile Adjudication Order” stated that the “[trial] Court concludes as a matter of law, that in regard to the allegations in the petition(s The Eller court cited two cases to support its conclusion, including State v. Midgett, 8 N.C. In the present case, the juvenile argued that his circumstances are more similar to those found in Eller This Court disagreed, finding that the circumstances of the present case comparable to the facts found

From the School of Government’s “North Carolina Criminal Law,” blog, please read this informative blog Watson (October 18, 2016) addressing North Carolina statutory law concerning juvenile warnings and rights

The jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder based upon both felony murder and malice, without the possibility of parole where it failed to identify any mitigating factors present in the case states that when sentencing a minor who has been convicted of first degree murder that was not solely based In the present case, the Court found that the trial court’s findings of fact and order failed to comply Accordingly, the Court vacated the order and judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a

determining if the juvenile was subject to a custodial interrogation, were distinguishable from the present case Therefore in the present case, the Court concluded that that the trial court did not err by finding that

Three recent cases decided by the Court of Appeals: Continuances In the matter of A.S., 2016 N.C.

Please see the latest update to our “Case Summaries” list on the “Materials for Defenders” page.   each of the G.S. 7B-2501(c) factors and did not abuse its discretion in ordering a Level 3 commitment based