The top national story this week is that the Supreme Court just heard oral argument in a case involving a shocking error by law enforcement. In 2017, an FBI SWAT team smashed its way into an Atlanta home and discharged a flashbang grenade in a pre-dawn raid. I believe the technical term for what happened is that they scared the bejeezus out of the couple and young child who were sleeping there . . . only to find out that they had entered the wrong residence. The warrant authorizing the intrusion was for 3741 Landau Lane, but they had entered 3756 Denville Trace. The residents sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government contended that something called the “discretionary function exception” barred recovery, and lower courts ruled for the government. The Supreme Court granted review and heard arguments this week. According to SCOTUSblog, the Court “was sympathetic” to the residents but the outcome of the case remains unclear. Read on for more news.
Procedures for Criminal Bench Trials in Superior Court
The North Carolina Constitution historically mandated trial by jury in all criminal cases in superior court. See N.C. Const. Art. I, Section 24 (2014) (“No person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury in open court. The General Assembly may, however, provide for other means of trial for misdemeanors, with the right of appeal for trial de novo.”); State v. Hudson, 280 N.C. 74, 79 (1971) (“In this State, the only exception to the rule that ‘nothing can be a conviction but the verdict of a jury’ . . . is the constitutional authority granted the General Assembly to provide for the Initial trial of misdemeanors in inferior courts without a jury, with trial De novo by a jury upon appeal. . . . It is equally rudimentary that a trial by jury in a criminal action cannot be waived by the accused in the Superior Court as long as his plea remains ‘not guilty.’”); State v. Bunch, 196 N.C. App. 438, 440 (2009), aff’d, 363 N.C. 841 (2010) (“Unlike the right to a jury trial established by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right to a jury trial pursuant to Article I, Section 24, cannot be waived.”); see also State v. Holt, 90 N.C. 749, 750–51 (1884) (“The constitution (Art. I, §13) provides that “no person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court. The legislature may, however, provide other means of trial for petty misdemeanors with the right of appeal.’”). Thus, a defendant who wished to proceed to trial in superior court had to do so before a jury. There was no option for a criminal trial in superior court in which the judge served as the finder of fact – a procedure known as a bench trial. The state constitution was, however, amended effective December 1, 2014 (for criminal offenses arraigned in superior court on or after that date) to allow a defendant in a noncapital case to waive the right to a jury trial with the consent of the trial judge. S.L. 2013-300.
As a result, Article I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution currently provides:
No person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury in open court, except that a person accused of any criminal offense for which the State is not seeking a sentence of death in superior court may, in writing or on the record in the court and with the consent of the trial judge, waive jury trial, subject to procedures prescribed by the General Assembly. The General Assembly may, however, provide for other means of trial for misdemeanors, with the right of appeal for trial de novo.
G.S. 15A-1201 prescribes the procedures for waiving jury trial in superior court in favor of a bench trial. G.S. 15A-1201(b) provides that when a defendant — with the consent of the trial judge — waives the right to trial by jury, the whole matter of law and fact “shall be heard and judgment given by the court.” Those determinations include aggravating factors in impaired driving cases under G.S. 20-179 and aggravating factors in structured sentencing cases under G.S. 15A-1340.16.
So how is it done?
May an Undercover Officer Engage in Sexual Activity with a Suspected Prostitute?
I read a news article some time ago about officers who investigate suspected prostitutes by going undercover and purchasing their services. The article noted that this practice is controversial. Some agencies apparently don’t allow it, deeming it unnecessary and dehumanizing; others allow brief sexual contact but then require the officer to desist; and still others allow officers to engage in extended sexual contact. Similar issues arise when officers use informants to procure sexual services. A premise of the article was that there is no legal impediment to such practices, but the actual legal landscape is more mixed. This post provides more nuance.
News Roundup
The top story this week is that country music star Jelly Roll has been recommended for a pardon by a Tennessee parole board. NBC has the story, as well as ABC and the AP. The singer, whose legal name is Jason B. Deford, 40, was convicted in 2008 of robbery and drug possession. He was released in 2016 and struggled to succeed as a musician before earning four Grammy Award nominations in February. Davidson County, TN, Sheriff Daron Hall asked Governor Bill Lee to pardon Jelly Roll last year, and the parole board’s vote on Tuesday was part of that mission. The matter is now pending before the governor. Read on for more criminal law news.
Authentication of Digital Communications Chart
A common evidence question that arises is how to properly authenticate digital communications. We have written on the topic in several blogs: How Can a Party Show Authorship of a Social Media Post or Other Electronic Communication?, Authenticating Photographs Obtained from Social Media Platforms, Business Records: Posts, Chats, and Texts, New Guidance on Authenticating Social Media, Admissibility of Electronic Writings: Emails, Text Messages, and Social Networking Posts, and more.
Last year, I created a chart to highlight the ingredients of authentication our appellate courts found to be adequate or inadequate as a foundation for surveillance video (also see the accompanying blog, Surveillance Video- When It Comes In and When It Doesn’t). I’ve received positive feedback on the chart and practitioners have asked for more evidence content in this format. For a second installment, I chose digital communications.
Juveniles and Vehicle Seizure Under G.S. 20-28.3
Does the law regarding motor vehicle seizure when a person is charged with felony speeding to elude arrest or an offense involving impaired driving apply to juveniles? If the case is subject to original juvenile jurisdiction, the answer is no. Read on to understand why that is and what to do if a seizure order is improperly issued.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (April 16, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on April 16, 2025. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
Updated Chapters in Superior Court Judges’ Benchbook
Three chapters in the criminal law section of the Superior Court Judges’ Benchbook recently have been updated. Among those chapters is Joinder and Severance, which addresses the joinder and severance of both offenses and defendants for trial, including the factors used to assess whether joinder is appropriate, the applicable procedural rules, and potential remedies for failure … Read more
Supreme Court Upholds ATF Regulation Defining Gun “Parts Kits” as Firearms
A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. __ (2025). It is an administrative law case, not a Second Amendment case, but folks interested in firearms law will still want to know about it. The media has generally described this case as allowing the ATF to ban “ghost guns,” which is not exactly wrong but also is not precise. Read on for more details.