Accordingly, the court docket remanded to superior court docket with instructions to remand to district court for a final order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of his arrest for lack of possible cause. Only after the state has had a possibility to establish a prima facie case could a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence be made by the defendant and regarded by the trial courtroom, until the state elects to dismiss the DWI charge. When the district courtroom enters its last order on remand granting the defendant’s pretrial movement to suppress, the state may have no additional right to appeal from that order. The Michigan Supreme Court’s choice concluding that the defendant’s double jeopardy rights were not violated by a second prosecution after a mistrial on grounds of jury impasse was not an unreasonable utility of federal legislation.
Criminal Procedure > Counsel Issues > Absolute Impasse
The court docket rejected the defendant’s constitutional and other challenges to G.S. The courtroom opined that the legislature intended pretrial motions to suppress evidence or dismiss charges underneath G.S. 20-38.6(a) to address only procedural issues together with, but not limited to, delays within the processing of a defendant, limitations on a defendant’s access to witnesses, and challenges to chemical check outcomes.
20-38.7(a) doesn’t specify a time by which the state should enchantment the district court’s preliminary finding to grant a movement to suppress or to dismiss. The courtroom indicated that an enchantment must be taken and perfected inside an affordable time, which is dependent upon the circumstances of the case.
20-38.7(a), that courtroom discovered that the district court docket’s conclusions of law granting the motion to dismiss have been primarily based on findings of fact cited in its order. 20-38.6 and 20-38.7, which permit the state to enchantment pretrial motions from district to superior courtroom for DWI circumstances, violated numerous constitutional provisions. The superior courtroom remanded to district courtroom for the entry of an order consistent with the superior court’s findings.
In a case involving tried homicide and other charges associated to a discharge of a firearm, the courtroom held that the trial courtroom did not err by denying the defendant’s pre-trial motion for DNA testing, pursuant to G.S. The defendant’s motion indicated that he wanted “to check the shell casings to see if there’s any DNA materials on the shell casings that may be compared to the Defendant.” The defendant additionally moved for fingerprint testing on the shell casings. The trial court docket denied the movement for DNA testing however ordered that the shell casings be subjected to fingerprint testing. The court determined that the absence of the defendant’s DNA on the shell casings, even if established, would not have a logical connection or be important to the defendant’s alibi defense.
In gentle of those circumstances, it was cheap for that court docket to determine that the trial choose had exercised sound discretion. The defendant pleaded guilty in Alabama state court docket to possession of a firearm by an individual convicted of a criminal offense of violence and thereafter was indicted by the United States for the analogous federal offense based on the same instance of possession. He moved to dismiss on the ground that the federal indictment was for “the identical offence” as the one at concern in his state conviction and thus uncovered him to double jeopardy. The district courtroom denied the motion and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, each citing the dual-sovereignty doctrine – the long-standing principle that two offenses aren’t the “identical offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by different sovereigns. Reviewing the textual content of the Double Jeopardy Clause, historic evidence, and its precedent, the Court affirmed the decrease courts and declined to depart from the doctrine.
The state gave discover of appeal and filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The courtroom dominated that the state did not have a proper to enchantment the superior courtroom’s order to the court of appeals. The order was interlocutory and did not grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss. However, it granted the state’s petition for certiorari to evaluation the problems.