Question

You are handed the following case by your boss:

State of North Carolina v. Jim Franklin Bonds
139 NC.App. 627, 533 S.E.2d 855
August 15, 2000
Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court, Davidson County, William Z Wood, Jr., Judge, of driving while impaired (DWI), and he appealed, The Court of Appeals, Lewis, J. held that: (1) officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was impaired, which justified stop of defendant's vehicle, and (2) weaving is not a threshold requirement in order to satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to justify an investigatory stop of a defendant suspected of DWI.
Affirmed (3-0 decision)
Which of the following is a true statement?
a. The defendant was convicted of DWI.
b. After the appeal, the defendant is still guilty of DWI.
c. This is a criminal case.
d. All of the above are true.

Answer 1

In the case of State of North Carolina v. Jim Franklin Bonds, all the statements provided are true: the defendant was convicted of DWI, remained guilty after the appeal, and it is a criminal case.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the case State of North Carolina v. Jim Franklin Bonds, the correct answer to the question about the true statements regarding the case is d. All of the above are true. This includes a.

The defendant was convicted of DWI, showing that the initial trial resulted in a conviction for driving while impaired. It also includes b. After the appeal, the defendant is still guilty of DWI, as the appellate court affirmed the conviction, meaning that the guilty verdict remained intact after the appeal. Lastly, c. This is a criminal case is true because the defendant was charged with and convicted of driving while impaired, which is a criminal offense.