HB 29: Survivor Act
- Includes funding to rape kit backlog
HB 393: Modernizing Sexual Assault Laws
- Clarifies who is a “care taker” and includes dating relationships of the parents
- Closes incapacitation loophole
Right to Revoke Consent
- Language that specifies you are allowed to revoke consent at any time
State v. White
Due to a small technicality in the indictment, the judgment finding Michael Lee White guilty of sexual offense with a seven-year-old minor has been vacated.
State v. Shackelford
The NC Court of Appeals vacated the judgment finding Brady Lorenzo Shackelford guilty of four felony stalking offenses. Shackelford posted numerous times about the victim on social media leading to his conviction. However, the Court ruled that such posts were protected speech under the 1st Amendment, and thus Shackelford’s conviction was unconstitutional.
State v. J.C.
This procedural decision granted J.C. an expunction for the count of indecent liberties with a child charge to which he pleaded guilty.
State v. Gambrell
This case concerns satellite-based monitoring (SBM), which is used to monitor offenders by tracking their location in order to deter them from repeating an offense. The Court ruled that the State must produce evidence proving that requiring the defendant to enroll in SBM would actually deter the offender. This is difficult evidence to obtain, since it turns on the perpetrator’s behavior after the trial. The State in this case was unable to produce such evidence, thus Kevin James Gambrell, who pleaded guilty to indecent liberties with a child, was not required to enroll in SBM.
Martin v. Martin
Though this decision is mostly procedural, it highlights the difficulties that may arise when pursuing justice in the criminal justice system. In this case, there was evidence that a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) may be appropriate, but it was not granted due to a mistake made when filing the complaint.
Bunting v. Bunting
The defendant in this case challenged a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) filed against him. The Court ruled that a “vague finding of a general history of abuse” is not a finding of an “act of domestic violence.” This means there must be detailed evidence of a history of abuse in order to find that the behavior was domestic violence.