Summary
The North Carolina Supreme Court considers whether retroactive application of the repeal of the North Carolina Racial Justice Act violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. The court holds that the repeal is unconstitutional as applied retroactively to Andrew Darrin Ramseur’s pending Racial Justice Act claims and reverses the trial court’s dismissal order. The opinion does not address the prospective application of the amended Act or its repeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether retroactive application of the 2013 repeal of the North Carolina Racial Justice Act violated the ex post facto provisions of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions.
- Whether retroactive application of the 2012 amendments to the Racial Justice Act violated the ex post facto provisions by altering the evidentiary requirements for pending RJA claims.
- Whether the amended RJA's hearing procedure could be applied retroactively.
- Whether the trial court erred by denying Ramseur's RJA motions on the pleadings without an evidentiary hearing and by denying discovery.
Holdings
- Retroactive application of the Racial Justice Act repeal to pending RJA motions violates the ex post facto provisions of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions because it eliminates a substantive claim and a form of relief that had been made applicable to crimes already committed, thereby increasing the severity of the punishment and depriving the defendant of an available defense to the punishment.
- The provisions of the Amended RJA that narrowed the geographic and temporal scope of relevant evidence and required more stringent proof of racial discrimination constitute ex post facto changes and cannot be applied retroactively to defendants with pending Original RJA motions.
- The Amended RJA provision granting the trial court discretion to determine whether an RJA motion states a sufficient claim before conducting an evidentiary hearing is procedural and may be applied retroactively to pending RJA motions.
- Ramseur's RJA motions stated sufficient claims and presented an evidentiary forecast requiring an evidentiary hearing; the trial court also erred by denying discovery and by resolving the motions on the pleadings.
Key quotations
“For the reasons stated herein, we hold that applying the repeal retroactively violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, and therefore we reverse the trial court.” (at -10)
“Rather, by retroactively eliminating the RJA’s substantive claim and its accompanying relief, the RJA Repeal increases the severity of the standard of punishment attached to the crime of first-degree murder and deprives defendant of a defense to the “nature or amount of the punishment imposed for its commission.”” (at -28)
“In summary, the evidentiary changes effected by the Amended RJA are an ex post facto law that cannot constitutionally be applied to defendants who had RJA MARs pending at the time of the Amended RJA.” (at -36)
Factual background
Ramseur was indicted for two first-degree murders and armed robbery arising from the shootings of Jennifer Lee Vincek and Jeffrey Robert Peck. The State sought the death penalty, and a jury convicted Ramseur and recommended death sentences for both murders. After enactment of the North Carolina Racial Justice Act, Ramseur filed motions alleging that race was a significant factor in the decision to seek or impose the death penalty in his case, including allegations concerning racial disparities, jury selection, courtroom arrangements, and racial tensions and publicity.
Procedural history
Ramseur was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 2010. He filed motions for appropriate relief under the Original and Amended Racial Justice Acts, but before the trial court ruled, the General Assembly repealed the RJA and declared pending motions void. The Superior Court of Iredell County dismissed the motions and alternatively denied them on the pleadings without an evidentiary hearing or additional discovery. The Supreme Court of North Carolina allowed certiorari and reversed.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion. The trial court must not apply the RJA repeal retroactively to void Ramseur's pending claims, must apply the Original RJA evidentiary rules to those claims, must conduct an evidentiary hearing because the motions state sufficient claims, and must provide discovery authorized by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1415(f).