Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Hanton

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 3, 2006No. COA04-1279Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcGEE, Judge

I concur with the majority’s determination of the second and third issues, but respectfully dissent as to the first issue because I disagree with the majority’s overly broad conclusion that “whether an out-of-state offense is substantially similar to a North Carolina offense is a question of law that must be determined by the trial court, not a jury.” (emphasis added).

In the present case, it appears from the record that the trial court solely conducted a comparison of the elements of the two statutes and did not appear to undertake any type of factual analysis of the circumstances underlying…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Taylor v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Shepard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  5. Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API