In July, the legislature enacted House Bill 1173, S.L. 2026-37, or “Jaleeyah’s Law.” As Shea previously noted in a news roundup, the impetus for the legislation was the fatal shooting of 13-year-old Jaleeyah Tune of Goldsboro, NC, in what is believed to be a gang-related killing. The new law creates several new criminal offenses and enhances the punishments for existing gang-related offenses. The law also contains provisions apparently designed to make it easier for prosecutors to introduce evidence of gang activity and to prove up gang involvement. Most of the changes are additions and revisions to the North Carolina Gang Suppression Act (Article 13A of Chapter 14) enacted in 2008, with some touching on other statutes. The last major change in this area of law occurred in 2017 (Jamie blogged about those changes here).
This two-part blog examines the contents of the new law. Part I discusses the new crimes, enhanced punishments, and new definitions of gang activity and gang members. Part II will explore the new evidentiary provisions.
New Crimes
“Firearm in Furtherance”
Under new G.S. 14-50.32, it will be a crime for “any member of a criminal gang to use or carry a firearm during and in relation to, or to possess a firearm in furtherance of, any serious felony, drug crime, or crime of violence.” The new criminal offense is a Class G felony (subsection (b)), with the possibility of being elevated to a Class F if the firearm is brandished (subsection (c)), and to a Class D if the firearm is discharged (subsection (d)).
For the purposes of this new offense, a crime of violence is defined as “[a]ny offense that would be chargeable by indictment under the laws of this State for which the State proves, based on the defendant’s actual conduct in committing the offense, that the defendant or another participant acting in concert with the defendant, used, attempted to use, or threatened to use physical force against the person or property of another.” Note that this definition is somewhat different from others found in criminal statutes, such as “violent offense” in the context of pretrial release determinations, see G.S. 15A-531(9) and 15A-534, “violent felony” in the context of violent habitual felon status, see 14-7.7(b), and “violent crime” in the context of capacity proceedings, see G.S. 15A-1003.
A drug crime is defined as “[a]ny offense that would be chargeable by indictment under Article 5 of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes.”
Both the definition for crime of violence and drug crime contain an unusual phrase, “chargeable by indictment.” It is not altogether clear what this phrase means, as it appears only once in the rest of the North Carolina General Statutes. The one other location is G.S. 75D-3(8), where “Racketeering Activity” is defined under the North Carolina Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In a RICO case interpreting the phrase, the Court of Appeals determined that it referred to felonies and excluded misdemeanors. See State ex rel. Thornburg v. Lot & Bldgs. at 800 Waughtown St., 107 N.C. App. 559, 563–64 (1992) (“Under North Carolina law, indictments are criminal pleadings necessary to instigate felony charges, not misdemeanor charges. See Article I, Section 22, Constitution of the State of North Carolina; N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A–627, 7A–271.”) If the phrase were to be interpreted to include all offenses, such an interpretation would seem problematic in rendering the words “chargeable by indictment” superfluous. See State v. Morgan, 372 N.C. 609, 614 (2019) (it is presumed that the legislature did not intend any provision to be “mere surplusage”).
But what about misdemeanors that could be joined with felonies under G.S. 15A-926 and thus indicted? Imagine that an individual engaged in criminal gang activity is apprehended for felony flee to elude in a motor vehicle, and law enforcement subsequently finds a small quantity of drugs and a gun in the car. The misdemeanor drug offense in this example is ostensibly “chargeable by indictment” in that it can be joined with the Class H felony flee to elude offense, which is not a valid predicate in itself. Are such misdemeanors, be they crimes of violence or drug crimes, valid predicates for the new crime of “firearm in furtherance?” It is unclear at this point whether the phrase “chargeable by indictment” creates a simple categorical binary capturing felonies and excluding misdemeanors (if so, why not use a term such as “drug felony,” a phrase that appeared in the caption of an earlier draft of the law?), or whether some misdemeanors are included.
The final category of predicate offenses, that of “serious offenses,” is relatively straightforward in that it is defined by felony class, encompassing all Class A to Class E offenses under Chapter 14.
An earlier draft of the bill created a new crime of possession of a firearm by a member of a criminal gang, without any required connection to a predicate criminal offense, but lawmakers removed this provision, potentially out of concern that it might not pass constitutional muster.
Providing Firearm to Juvenile
Jaleeyah’s Law also creates a new crime codified as G.S. 14-50.33. Under this provision, it will be a Class G felony to “sell, deliver, give, or otherwise transfer a firearm to a person whom the criminal gang member knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile” (defined as a person under 18).
Raised Punishments
In addition to creating new offenses, the new law elevates the punishments for various gang enhancements. Prior to the change, where an individual committed any felony other than a Class A, B1, or B2 felony and it was found that the offense was committed as part of criminal gang activity, the punishment was raised by one class under G.S. 15A-1340.16E. After the change, the punishment will be raised by two classes. For criminal gang leaders, the punishment will be raised by three classes instead of the previous two. The new law did not modify G.S. 14-50.22, and thus misdemeanors are still subject to a one-class gang enhancement.
The new law also raises the punishments for soliciting participation in gang activity under G.S. 14-50.17 and 14-50.18, raising the punishment for soliciting an adult to a Class F felony and the punishment for soliciting a minor to a Class D felony. The law expands the definition of a minor for these purposes by raising the age threshold to 18.
According to the Legislative Incarceration Fiscal Note prepared for the law, there were only 21 charges and one conviction for soliciting an adult in 2025, and only two charges and zero convictions for soliciting a minor.
New Definitions of Criminal Gang Activity and Criminal Gang Member
Several amendments change the definition of criminal gang, criminal gang activity, criminal gang member, and criminal gang leader. Some of these amendments are rewordings or clarifications of previous verbiage, while others are more substantive.
No More Nexus?
Perhaps most significantly, the new law appears to modify the definition of criminal gang activity under G.S. 14-50.16A(2) so that there is no longer a requirement for the state to show that an individual acted to “further any criminal purpose” of the criminal gang. Subject to some narrow exceptions, any felony (other than Class A, B1, or B2) committed by gang members, be it related to status as a gang member or not, will constitute criminal gang activity and thus be subject to the enhancements discussed above. Removing what other states refer to as a “nexus” requirement (connecting the crime with a gang “purpose”) is one of the most impactful changes in the new law. Totally unrelated conduct, such as domestic violence, could be subject to the enhancement (But does the reference to the plural “participants” in this provision require that more than one individual be involved in the criminal activity? Probably not, given the subsequent phrase, “acting individually”?).
Notably, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a gang enhancement statute in 2020 on constitutional due process and freedom of association grounds where the statute did not require a connection between the criminal activity and the gang’s purpose. See State v. Arevalo, 470 P.3d 644 (Ariz. 2020) (relying on Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961)). Appellate courts in Florida and Tennessee have made similar rulings. See State v. O.C., 748 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1999); State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118, 158-60 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016) (cataloging nexus requirements in other states’ gang statutes). Courts will likely be tasked with ruling on the constitutionality of this new North Carolina provision in the coming months. To the extent that other provisions of the new law punish criminal activity while being a gang member as opposed to criminal activity connected to gang membership, these other provisions would also be subject to constitutional challenge.
Interestingly, as G.S. 14-50.22 was left intact, a nexus between the offense and the criminal gang is still required to enhance a misdemeanor offense (under this statute, a misdemeanor offense can be elevated by one class when it is “committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, any criminal gang”).
Reduced Gang Membership Criteria
The new law also reduces the number of criteria necessary to establish gang membership from three to two (the criteria are listed in G.S. 14-50.16A(4)). However, if the state seeks to prove up gang membership with only two criteria, new G.S. 14-50.16A(4) requires that one of the criteria be (1) admission to gang membership, (2) identification by reliable source, or (3) physical evidence such as “ledgers, rosters, or membership documents.”
If the state seeks to prove up gang membership with three criteria, the state can choose from any of the criteria listed above or the following: (4) previous involvement in criminal gang activity, (5) adoption of symbols, hand signs, or graffiti associated with a criminal gang, (6) adoption of display of colors or style of dress associated with a criminal gang, (7) tattoos or markings associated with a criminal gang, (8) adoption of language or terminology associated with a criminal gang, or (9) appearance in photographs, social media, or written or electronic communication to promote a criminal gang or document criminal gang activity.
Some advocates expressed concern that reducing the criteria necessary to establish gang membership would implicate First Amendment freedom of association rights and might ensnare those with superficial or nonexistent gang ties. The definition that was enacted, requiring a particular subset of criteria for the “two-factor” approach, appears to be a compromise.
The law also reduces the number of criteria necessary to establish criminal gang leadership pursuant to G.S. 14-50.16A(3).
The Legislative Incarceration Fiscal Note states that there is a lack of reliable data as to how many offenses had criminal gang activity sentence enhancements applied in the past. Evidently, tracking the enhancement requires manual entry of a particular flag by the court clerk and the practice has been inconsistent.
It is unclear at this point whether modifying the definition of criminal gang activity and reducing the number of criteria necessary to establish gang membership will lead to an increase in the number of prosecutions seeking to prove up gang involvement.
Effective Date. The provisions discussed above go into effect December 1, 2026, and apply to offenses committed on or after that date.
This concludes Part I of this two-part blog on Jaleeyah’s Law. The second installment will address additional changes contained within the new law: modifications to the law of evidence.
