{
  "id": 131926,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DERRICK MALETTE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Malette",
  "decision_date": "1999-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 79PA98",
  "first_page": "52",
  "last_page": "55",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "350 N.C. 52"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "496 S.E.2d 850",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N.C. App. 749",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "467 U.S. 253",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6198853
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/467/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "496 S.E.2d 597",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N.C. App. 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11655988
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/128/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "508 S.E.2d 277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "285"
        },
        {
          "page": "285-86"
        },
        {
          "page": "289"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571662
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0483-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 374,
    "char_count": 6961,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1334450176499773e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5767141250319999
    },
    "sha256": "2ef183caa4a0331efa481c9470f4b499feeed1740312ba61a63ee85f8f2ae21f",
    "simhash": "1:195b9b6614288cb2",
    "word_count": 1118
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:00.917666+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justices Martin and Wainwright did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DERRICK MALETTE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Justice.\nThe issue in this case is whether N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1(b), which sets forth the conditions of bail and pretrial release for individuals accused of crimes of domestic violence, is unconstitutional, on its face and as applied to defendant, under the Due Process and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution. In State v. Thompson, 349 N.C. 483, 508 S.E.2d 277 (1998), we held that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1(b), while unconstitutionally applied to the defendant in that case, is facially constitutional for the reasons set forth therein. Thus,- we turn our attention to whether N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1(b) has been applied constitutionally to defendant in this case.\nOn 28 October 1995, a warrant was issued for defendant\u2019s arrest for assault inflicting serious injury on Dorian Jones by hitting and kicking her, causing internal bleeding necessitating medical attention. Defendant was served with the warrant and arrested on 3 December 1995. He was taken before a magistrate on that date. The magistrate marked the release order form, \u201cYour release is not authorized.\u201d The magistrate then indicated under the \u201cOrder for Commitment\u201d to \u201cHold for District Court Judge 12-4-95 for domestic violence 15A-534.1.\u201d\nOn 4 December 1995, defendant was taken before District Court Judge Carolyn Johnson, who set a secured bond of $10,000. On 7 December 1995, the State and defendant\u2019s counsel agreed to a secured bond in the amount of $1,000 on the condition that defendant have no contact with the victim. District Court Judge Kenneth Titus signed the order, and defendant was released that day after posting bond.\nWhen defendant\u2019s case was called on 11 December 1995, he moved to dismiss the charge pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-954(5), arguing that prosecution of the case violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. On 11 December 1995, after a hearing, District Court Judge William Y. Manson entered an order dismissing the charge against defendant on the constitutional grounds of double jeopardy and due process. The State appealed to the Superior Court.\nThe matter was heard by Judge Orlando E Hudson, Jr., at the 18 March 1996 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Durham County. On 26 April 1996, nunc pro tunc 21 March 1996, Judge Hudson entered an order finding that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1 is regulatory rather than punitive in nature, concluded that the statute is constitutional, reinstated the charges against defendant, and remanded the case to the District Court for trial.\nOn 29 April 1996, Judge Hudson entered a supplemental order, adding to the findings of the 26 April 1996 order. Defendant appealed both orders to the Court of Appeals.\nFor the reasons it stated in State v. Thompson, 128 N.C. App. 547, 496 S.E.2d 597 (1998), the Court of Appeals in this case affirmed the Superior Court in a per curiam, unpublished opinion. On 7 May 1998, this Court allowed defendant\u2019s petition for discretionary review and retained his notice of appeal of a constitutional question.\nIn our review of Thompson, we stated that \u201cpretrial detention pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1(b) does not pass constitutional muster in a particular case simply because it is constitutionally permissible in the abstract. Constitutional attacks on criminal statutes must often \u2018be made on a case-by-case basis.\u2019 \u201d Thompson, 349 N.C. 497, 508 S.E.2d at 285 (quoting Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 269 n.18, 81 L. Ed. 2d 207, 220 n.18 (1984)). In determining that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1(b) as applied to the defendant in State v. Thompson was unconstitutional, we noted:\nDefendant was arrested at 3:45 p.m. on a Saturday. The magistrate\u2019s order of commitment did not authorize defendant\u2019s release from jail for a bond hearing until 3:45 p.m. the following Monday. Defendant was not brought before a judge upon the opening of court on Monday morning. He, instead, remained in jail until Monday afternoon, almost forty-eight hours after his arrest.\nId. at 497, 508 S.E.2d at 285-86. In Thompson, we concluded \u201cthat the application of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1(b) . . . significantly harmed defendant\u2019s fundamental right to liberty when unreasonable delay prevented him from receiving a prompt post-detention hearing before the first available judge regarding the conditions of his pretrial release.\u201d Id. at 502, 508 S.E.2d at 289.\nIn the case sub judice, the record does not indicate that there was unreasonable delay in holding the post-detention hearing. On Sunday, 3 December 1995, defendant was arrested and taken before a magistrate who ordered that he be brought before a judge pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1(b) on the very next day, Monday, 4 December 1995. Defendant was in fact brought before District Court Judge Carolyn Johnson on Monday, 4 December 1995, and she set a secured bond of $10,000, which subsequently was reduced to $1,000. There is no evidence here that the magistrate arbitrarily set a forty-eight-hour limit as in Thompson or that the State did not move expeditiously in bringing defendant before a judge.\nTherefore, we conclude that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1(b) is constitutional as applied to this defendant. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nAFFIRMED.\nJustices Martin and Wainwright did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Teresa L. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Office of the Public Defender, by Russell J. Hollers III, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DERRICK MALETTE\nNo. 79PA98\n(Filed 5 February 1999)\nBail and Pretrial Release\u2014 domestic violence \u2014 pretrial detention and release \u2014 due process, double jeopardy rights of defendant\nThe statute setting forth the conditions of bail and pretrial release for individuals accused of crimes of domestic violence, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-534.1(b), did not violate due process or double jeopardy as applied to defendant where defendant was arrested and taken before a magistrate who ordered that he be brought before a judge pursuant to the statute on the very next day; defendant was in fact brought before a district court judge the following day, and she set a secured bond of $10,000, which was subsequently reduced to $1,000; and there is no evidence that the magistrate arbitrarily set a forty-eight-hour limit or that the State did not move expeditiously in bringing defendant before a judge.\nJustices Martin and Wainwright did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nOn appeal of a substantial constitutional question pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(1) and on discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a per curiam, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, 128 N.C. App. 749, 496 S.E.2d 850 (1998), affirming an order and supplemental order entered by Hudson, J., at the 18 March 1996 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 October 1998.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Teresa L. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nOffice of the Public Defender, by Russell J. Hollers III, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0052-01",
  "first_page_order": 104,
  "last_page_order": 107
}