Debbie Defendant is charged with misdemeanor stalking under G.S. 14-277.3A. She fails to appear in district court on January 23, 2026. The district court judge issues an order for Debbie’s arrest, recommending imposition of a $10,000 secured bond.
Debbie is arrested and brought before a magistrate. What conditions of pretrial release may the magistrate impose?
- An unsecured bond
- A $5,000 secured bond
- A $10,000 secured bond
- A $15,000 secured bond
- No release
Given the changes enacted by S.L. 2025-93 (H 307), one may be surprised to learn that answers (B), (C), (D), and (E) are all correct.
The rebuttable presumption
All violent offenses as defined by G.S. 15A-531(9) are subject to a rebuttable presumption against pretrial release. Rebuttable presumptions against pretrial release provide that no condition of release will reasonably assure (i) the appearance of the person as required and (ii) the safety of the community. Generally, what this means is that conditions of release should be denied unless the presumption is overcome.
Unlike presumptions found in other statutes, the rebuttable presumption for violent offenses applies solely based on the charging of the offense—a judicial official does not need to make any additional findings (you can read more about rebuttable presumptions in this previous post). Because stalking under G.S. 14-277.3A is a violent offense, a magistrate determining conditions of release for a defendant arrested on an OFA for this offense may deny conditions of release, making answer choice (E) correct.
Orders for arrest
Pre-Iryna’s law.
Prior to December 1, 2025, G.S. 15A-534(d1) stated in relevant part:
When conditions of pretrial release are being imposed on a defendant who has failed on one or more prior occasions to appear to answer one or more of the charges to which the conditions apply, the judicial official shall at a minimum impose the conditions of pretrial release that are recommended in any order for the arrest of the defendant that was issued for the defendant’s most recent failure to appear. If no conditions are recommended in that order for arrest, the judicial official shall require the execution of a secured appearance bond in an amount at least double the amount of the most recent previous secured or unsecured bond for the charges or, if no bond has yet been required for the charges, in the amount of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000).
When a defendant was arrested on an order for arrest for failing to appear, magistrates typically imposed the conditions that were recommended in the OFA by the judge. Many magistrates have shared that they typically did not disturb the type of release or the amount of the bond noted by the judge and might have only occasionally imposed additional restrictions.
While this practice was supported by law, magistrates did have statutory authority to amend those conditions if they deemed it necessary for a particular defendant. G.S. 15A-534(d1) requires that the judicial official “at a minimum” impose the conditions of pretrial release that are recommended in the OFA. In cases like Debbie’s, that meant the magistrate had to impose at least a $10,000 secured bond. The magistrate could not reduce the bond below $10,000 or impose less restrictive conditions, but the magistrate could increase the bond above $10,000 or impose more restrictive conditions if it was deemed necessary to ensure Debbie’s appearance in court and the safety of the community.
Post-Iryna’s law.
Today, that rule remains unchanged only for offenses that are not violent offenses. Effective December 1, 2025, H307 excluded violent offenses from the rules regarding a defendant who has failed to appear on the charges. While the previous version of G.S. 15A-534(d1) largely remains the same, H307 amended the statute to preface it with the clause “except for a defendant charged with a violent offense.” So, a defendant charged with a violent offense is not subject to the provisions in G.S. 15A-534(d1).
Magistrates may wish to continue the practice of leaving the recommendation of the judge undisturbed. Provided that the recommendation algins with the law, that option remains available for the magistrate. Had the judge in the example above instead recommended a “$10,000 unsecured bond,” the magistrate could not impose that condition, as an unsecured bond is not a permissible condition of release for a violent offense (thus eliminating answer choice (A)). Instead, a secured bond is required. G.S. 15A-534(b1).
A magistrate who wishes to deviate entirely from the conditions recommended in an OFA for a violent offense has the statutory authority to do so. Because G.S. 15A-534(d1) does not apply to violent offenses, a magistrate may impose a secured bond in any amount, regardless of the amount recommended in the OFA. The magistrate may also choose to (and in certain circumstances may be required to) impose electronic house arrest.
A magistrate determining conditions of release for a defendant arrested on an OFA should keep in mind that the rebuttable presumption for violent offenses will still apply. The presumption is not limited to initial arrests for violent offenses. Rather, it applies any time conditions of release are being considered for a violent offense. Regardless of whether the magistrate chooses to follow the recommendation in the OFA or impose something different, the magistrate must first overcome the rebuttable presumption that no condition of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community. Otherwise, the magistrate must deny conditions of release.
