State v. ThompsonState v. Thompson
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Smith
On 28 October 1995, defendant was arrested on charges of assault inflicting serious injury, assault on a female, and second degree trespass in violation of
On 11 December 1995, defendant’s case was called for trial in district court. Defendant entered pleas of not guilty to all charges and also moved to dismiss the charges pursuant to
The State appealed to superior court pursuant to
We first observe that defendant appealed the superior court’s order reinstating the charges against him pursuant to
(a) In all cases in which the defendant is charged with assault on or communicating a threat to a spouse or former spouse or a person with whom the defendant lives or has lived as if married, with domestic criminal trespass, or with violation of an order entered pursuant to Chapter 50B, Domestic Violence, of the General Statutes, the judicial official who determines the conditions of pretrial release shall be a judge, and the following provisions shall apply in addition to the provisions of G.S. 15A-534:
(1) Upon a determination by the judge that the immediate release of the defendant will pose a danger of injury to the alleged victim or to any other person or is likely to result in intimidation of the alleged victim and upon a determination that the execution of an appearance bond as required by G.S. 15A-534 will not reasonably assure that such injury or intimidation will not occur, a judge may retain the defendant in custody for a reasonable period of time while determining the conditions of pretrial release.
(2) A judge may impose the following conditions on pretrial release:
a. That the defendant stay away from the home, school, business or place of employment of the alleged victim;
b. That the defendant refrain from assaulting, beating, molesting, or wounding the alleged victim;
c. That the defendant refrain from removing, damaging or injuring specifically identified property;
d. That the defendant may visit his or her child or children at times and places provided by the terms of any existing order entered by a judge.
The conditions set forth above may be imposed in addition to requiring that the defendant execute a secured appearance bond.
* * * *
(b) A defendant may be retained in custody not more than 48 hours from the time of arrest without a determination being made under this section by a judge. If a judge has not acted pursuant to this section within 48 hours of arrest, the magistrate shall act under the provisions of this section.
In challenging the constitutionality of this statute, defendant carries a heavy burden. Barringer v. Caldwell County Bd. Of Educ., 123 N.C. App. 373, 378, 473 S.E.2d 435, 438 (1996). “A strong presumption exists in favor of constitutionality, and a statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it is clearly so, or the statute cannot be upheld on any ground. Moreover, ‘a mere doubt [as to
The Double Jeopardy Clause of
In analyzing the double jeopardy issue with respect to civil sanctions, this Court recently stated:
Our... Supreme Court... has noted that Halper did not hold that every civil sanction be viewed as punishment; rather, Halper is a “ ‘rule for the rare case.’ ” A civil sanction may invoke double jeopardy protections as a form of “punishment” only if it is grossly disproportionate to legitimate State goals separate from those served by criminal prosecution. . . . Neither the severity of the sanction nor the fact that it has a deterrent purpose automatically establishes that it is a form of punishment. Nor does the fact that the sanction has a punitive component invoke double jeopardy protection where the government’s remedial interests are tightly intertwined with its punitive interests.
State v. Davis, 126 N.C. App. 415, 419, 485 S.E.2d 329, 332 (1997) (citations omitted) (holding that school expulsion is not punishment invoking double jeopardy protection). See also State v. Oliver, 343 N.C. 202, 470 S.E.2d 16 (1996) (holding that ten-day driver’s license revocation and $50.00 license restoration fee do not constitute punishment barring subsequent DWI prosecution under the double jeopardy clause).
Noting that ‘Halper’s test for determining whether a particular sanction is ‘punitive,’ and thus subject to the strictures of the Double Jeopardy Clause, has proved unworkable[,]” the United States Supreme Court, in Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. —, -, — L. Ed. 2d -, -(1997), recently disavowed in large part Halper’s method of analysis. In Hudson, the Court held that administratively imposed monetary penalties and occupational debarment for violations of federal banking
(1) “[w]hether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint”; (2) “whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment”; (3) “whether it comes into play only on a finding of sci-enter”; (4) “whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment-retribution and deterrence”; (5) “whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime”; (6) “whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it”; and (7) “whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.”
Id. The Court stated, however, that no one factor should be controlling. Id. at -, - L. Ed. 2d at —.
We are aware that the double jeopardy issues raised in both Halper and Hudson involve the imposition of criminal and civil sanctions, and not the imposition of multiple criminal punishments. Nevertheless, several cases have employed the Kennedy factors in determining whether pretrial detention constitutes punishment without proof of guilt in violation of due process. See Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 81 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1984); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1987). We therefore find these factors helpful in determining whether
Applying the Kennedy factors in the instant case, we acknowledge that while pretrial detention without bond invokes an affirmative restraint, “the mere fact that a person is detained does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the government has imposed punishment.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 746, 95 L. Ed. 2d at 708. It is evident
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude
Defendant also contends the superior court erred by concluding that
The Due Process Clause of
Defendant cites Salerno, which involved a challenge to the Bail Reform Act of 1984, in support of his argument that
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 permitted federal courts to detain arrestees pending trial if the government demonstrated by
We next address the issue of whether
In determining whether a law violates substantive due process, the United States Supreme Court long ago formulated a two-tiered test: if the right infringed upon is a “fundamental” right, then the law will be viewed with strict scrutiny and the party seeking to apply the law must demonstrate a compelling state interest for the law to survive a constitutional attack; if the right infringed upon is not a fundamental right, then the party applying the law need only demonstrate that the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Dixon v. Peters, 63 N.C. App. 592, 598, 306 S.E.2d 477, 481 (1983) (citing Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. 483, 99 L. Ed. 2d 563 (1955)).
Under either level of scrutiny,
We now turn to the issue of whether
[F]irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.
Keeping in mind the importance of an individual’s liberty interest, we do not believe
We therefore conclude the trial court properly held that