Floods have gripped the nation. From Texas, to New Mexico, to here in central North Carolina, severe floods have taken lives and devastated communities. In Texas, floods have killed over 120 people statewide, with over 160 still missing. Due to substantial damage, recovery efforts have slowed, signaling a long road ahead for those with missing loved ones. In New Mexico, flash flooding on Tuesday killed three people and severely damaged the mountain community of Ruidoso—which just spent a year recovering from devastating wildfires and flooding in 2024. Locally, tropical storm Chantal brought heavy flooding across five counties on Sunday evening, taking six lives. Thunderstorms and flooding have continued through the week, striking Durham on Wednesday and multiple counties last night. For those affected, click here for shelter options, water notices, and other flood relief resources. Local businesses and charities are also leading the way in collecting and distributing donations. Read on for the latest in criminal law news.
Highlights from the 2024 Sentencing Commission Statistical Report
Today’s post reviews the latest Structured Sentencing Statistical Report from the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission.
New Report on the Use of Social Workers in NC Public Defender Offices
Last month, the School of Government’s Criminal Justice Innovation Lab released a new report evaluating the implementation of social work positions in North Carolina public defender offices. This report is the culmination of an eighteen-month partnership between the Lab and the Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS) to learn more about the day-to-day function of social workers, explore the benefits and challenges of integrating social work staff, and develop recommendations for other offices interested to add or expand social work capacity. This post summarizes the findings from the implementation evaluation and the accompanying recommendations.
Variations on State v. Singleton: Surplus Theory in State v. Tate.
After State v. Singleton, 386 N.C. 183 (2024), an indictment is not rendered facially invalid by failure to allege all the elements of a crime. One issue that remains unresolved is the consequence of failure to allege the State’s theory. Two post-Singleton cases decided last year found reversible error when the trial court instructed the jury on a theory not alleged in the indictment. See State v. Wilson, 910 S.E.2d 407 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2024); State v. Little, 296 N.C. App. 424 (2024). More recently, in State v. Tate, No. COA24-450 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025), the Court of Appeals cited Singleton in support of its conclusion that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on a theory that was not alleged in the indictment. This post examines the opinion in Tate.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (July 2, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on July 2, 2025.
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.
Delaying Initial Appearances and Detaining Impaired Drivers
After law enforcement arrests someone, they must take that person before a judicial official “without unnecessary delay” pursuant to G.S. 15A-501(2). This is for the judicial official—often a magistrate—to conduct an initial appearance. During an initial appearance, magistrates review the validity of the arrest, issue charging documents, inform the arrested person of their rights, and set pretrial release conditions (if the person is eligible). Considering these essential tasks, when may law enforcement or magistrates delay an initial appearance? And how would a delay affect a magistrate’s decision to impose an impaired driver hold under G.S. 15A-534.2, or vice versa? Read on to find out.
News Roundup
Former Durham Bull Wander Franco was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor in the Dominican Republic this week. This ESPN story reports that he received a suspended sentence, while “[t]he mother of the [14 year old] victim . . . was convicted of sexually trafficking her daughter and sentenced to 10 years in prison after prosecutors proved she sought financial gains from Franco and laundered money.” Franco was a star for the Bulls and quickly moved up to the major league level. He had just signed an 11-year, $182 million contract with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays when he was arrested. Whether he will be able to resume his baseball career is not clear. He may have difficulty obtaining a visa to enter the United States, and Major League Baseball may take action against him as well. Additionally, he is still facing charges in his home country connected to the alleged unlawful possession of a firearm. Keep reading for more news.
Common Character Evidence Questions in Self-Defense Cases
Character evidence is one of the most challenging areas of evidence law to navigate, as Jessie Smith observes here. Jessie’s blog features a useful chart to apply Rules 404 and 405 and also links to the bench book chapter.
I find it helpful to see these rules in action with concrete examples. A common context in which the character evidence rules come into play in criminal cases is self-defense cases. This post discusses several common questions that arise, as well as some adjacent issues.
Let’s use a simple hypothetical:
The defendant is charged with shooting the victim outside of a bar after an argument about whether the victim approached the defendant’s girlfriend. The defendant claims that the victim came at him first with a knife.
The questions below deal with what the defendant can elicit about the victim and what the State can elicit about the defendant. As we work through the examples, remember that Rule 404 addresses when character evidence is admissible or inadmissible, and Rule 405 addresses the method of proof for the character evidence (reputation/opinion evidence or specific instances of conduct).
Rules 404 and 405 are included at the end of the post for reference.