This legislative session the General Assembly authorized cities and counties to use automated traffic cameras and speed sensors to enforce speed limits in school zones. Enforcement of traffic laws through electronic means is not new to North Carolina; some local governments already use automated cameras to cite drivers who run red lights or pass stopped school buses. And more than 20 years ago, S.L. 2003-280 (H 562) authorized the City of Charlotte to use photographic speed-measuring systems during a three-year pilot program. Several other states, including Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, and Washington, already use automated cameras and sensors to detect and sanction speeding. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lists speed safety camera enforcement as an effective countermeasure to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and researchers reported that the brief use of such systems in the Charlotte pilot program appeared “to have a positive effect on collisions and speed conformity.” This post will review the most recent North Carolina legislation, chaptered in S.L. 2025-47 (S 391), and consider questions that may arise for local governments interested in exercising this authority.
Shea Denning
Recent Legislative Changes Affecting Judicial Authority and Administration
House Bill 620, chaptered as S.L. 2025-54, enacted several changes affecting judicial authority and administration that may be of interest to practitioners generally. This post will review the legislation’s provisions affecting removal proceedings, the jurisdiction of specially assigned superior court judges, substitution of one trial judge for another, age limits for service as a trial judge, protocols for recovery courts, the disclosure of courtroom audio recordings, training and educational materials for jurors, and the appointment of magistrates.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (Sept. 3, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on September 3, 2025. In defendant’s trial for felonious possession of stolen goods, admission of police chief’s testimony about defendant’s record of charges for breaking and entering was not plain error. State v. Clark, No. COA25-13 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. … Read more
Annual Report from the North Carolina Judicial College (2024-25)
I am excited to share this year’s annual report from the North Carolina Judicial College. Taking stock of a year’s work can be a meaningful exercise, and I’m proud of what we — and the judicial officials we serve — accomplished. Last year, we offered nearly 50 continuing education courses that provided more than 700 hours of continuing education credit. Those courses included Advanced Criminal Procedure for Superior Court Judges, Conducting Hearings and Entering Judgment for Magistrates, Drafting Orders for Clerks, and the Indian Child Welfare Act Seminar, all of which are featured in the report along with reviews from participants. We also participated in the awarding of certifications to several officials. Seven district court judges were among the first group to ever receive the Advanced Juvenile Justice Certification and eleven magistrates were certified, nine in civil law and two in criminal law. The report lists those officials by name and district; if you know them, please extend your congratulations.
New Judicial College Course Catalog
The North Carolina Judicial College was founded in 2005 to expand the education and training the School of Government has provided to judicial branch officials since its founding in 1931. And expand we have! Last year we offered nearly 50 continuing education courses that provided more than 700 hours of continuing education credit. Those courses include orientation programs, classes focused on discrete topics of interest, experiential learning opportunities, skills-based training, and leadership seminars. They are offered to an array of judicial officials, including trial and appellate court judges, magistrates, and clerks of court.
State v. Tate: DNA Analysis, the Confrontation Clause, and Testimonial Hearsay
My colleague Joe Hyde blogged last week about the Court of Appeals’ determination in State v. Tate, __ N.C. App. ___ (June 18, 2025), that the trial court did not err when it instructed the jury on a theory that was not alleged in the indictment. I’m returning to Tate this week to discuss another aspect of the Court’s holding, namely its determination that the defendant’s confrontation clause rights were not violated when an expert from the State Crime Lab testified to an opinion that was based in part on DNA test results generated by private third-party laboratory. This post will unpack the court’s analysis of that issue and will consider what it might mean for testimony by substitute analysts more generally.
State v. Aspiote and Contempt Proceedings Against a Person Who Appears Impaired in Court
In State v. Aspiote, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May 21, 2025), the North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred in holding a defendant in direct criminal contempt for appearing in court to plead guilty with impairing substances in his system. This post will review the circumstances that led to the contempt finding in Aspiote and the Court of Appeals’ analysis of why the trial court erred and will consider a trial court’s authority to hold a person in contempt for appearing in court while impaired.
Grand Jurors, Impartiality, and Disqualification
In North Carolina, a person must be indicted by a grand jury or must waive the right to indictment before he or she may prosecuted in superior court for a felony offense. N.C. Const. Art. 1, § 22. The right to a grand jury determination of whether a person must stand trial for a felony has been characterized as “one of the greatest safeguards of the freedom of the citizen.” State v. Barker, 107 N.C. 913, 919 (1890)
Grand juries consist of 18 members who typically serve 12-month terms, with nine grand jurors rotating off the grand jury every six months. At least 12 grand jurors must be present for the grand jury to lawfully conduct its business.
In contrast to the time-consuming voir dire associated with the selection of petit jurors for individual criminal trials, selection of grand jurors is a relatively brief process. The superior court judge presiding over the first session of criminal superior court after each January 1 and July 1 reviews questionnaires completed by grand jurors to determine whether those jurors randomly selected from the pool of summoned jurors meet the qualifications set forth in G.S. 9-3. G.S. 15A-622(b). The judge then considers hardship excuses related to the person’s inability to carry out the service of a grand juror. The judge does not inquire into potential grand jurors’ experiences, predilections, or knowledge of those involved in the case – issues frequently explored during the selection of trial jurors. Because the matters to be presented to the grand jury are not pre-determined, it is not possible to suss out a juror’s possible connection to or knowledge of those matters in advance of grand juror’s selection.
After impaneling the grand jury, the presiding judge appoints one of the grand jurors as its foreperson. G.S. 15A-622(e). In selecting that person, the judge may consider qualities reasonably related to that leadership role such as a grand juror’s education, work experience, ability to follow instructions, and prior grand jury experience. See State v. Cofield, 324 N.C. 452, 459 (1989). The foreperson presides over grand jury hearings and may excuse individual grand jurors from attending particular sessions. See G.S. 15A-622(d); 15A-623(b).
Once the grand jury is impaneled and the foreperson selected, its work is done in secret. See G.S. 15A-623(e). Only the grand jurors may be present in the grand jury room during deliberations and voting. G.S. 15A-623(d).
So what happens when a grand juror turns out to have a connection with a witness or potential defendant or independent knowledge related to the crime alleged in a bill of indictment?
State v. Chambers and the Substitution and Discharging of Alternate Jurors Pursuant to G.S. 15A-1215(a)
Criminal law practitioners may recall that in 2021 the General Assembly amended G.S. 15A-1215(a) to permit the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations have begun in a criminal trial. S.L. 2021-94. When those changes became effective for jurors selected on or after October 1, 2021, North Carolina joined the federal courts and several other states that permit this practice.
The practice was, however, challenged within a few years of enactment. And the North Carolina Court of Appeals in State v. Chambers, 292 N.C. App. 459 (2024), held that notwithstanding G.S. 15A-1215(a), the state constitutional requirement for unanimous verdict of twelve jurors in a criminal case prohibited the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations begin. Two weeks ago, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, upholding the statute as constitutional. This post will review the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Chambers, No. 56PA24, ___ N.C. ___ (2025), and consider how trial courts must handle alternate jurors in future trials.
Case Summaries: N.C. Supreme Court (May 23, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Supreme Court released on May 23, 2025.