Thieves broke into a gallery of the Louvre Museum in Paris early Sunday morning, stole some of France’s priceless crown jewels, and escaped on scooters, as reported by the BBC and the NYT. Around 9:30 a.m. (local time), shortly after the museum had opened to visitors, four masked thieves used a vehicle-mounted electric ladder to gain access to a balcony overlooking the River Seine. Two thieves cut through a window with a disc cutter – setting off security alarms – and entered the Galerie d’Apollon, where they threatened security guards and stole items from two display cases. The thieves snatched eight objects, including a sapphire necklace, an emerald necklace, and a diadem worn by Empress Eugénie, the wife of Napoleon III. Read on for more criminal law news.
Joseph L. Hyde
A Nice Knock-Down Argument: Statutory Construction in Jenkins and Hardaway.
Under G.S. 14-34.10, it is a felony for any person to discharge a firearm within any occupied enclosure, such as a motor vehicle, with the intent to incite fear in another. G.S. 14-34.10. In State v. Jenkins, No. COA24-889 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that the plain language of this statute was satisfied by a defendant who fired a gun from inside his car, injuring a victim in another car. More recently, in State v. Hardaway, No. COA24-538 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2025), the Court of Appeals, over a doubtful concurrence, found itself bound by Jenkins. This post considers the statutory construction of G.S. 14-34.10 in Jenkins and Hardaway.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (Sept. 17, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on September 17, 2025.
Some Other Provision of Law
Several criminal statutes include the provision that a person who commits the offense prescribed is guilty of a designated class of offense “unless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment.” E.g., G.S. 14-33(c). Two recent cases illustrate the application of such provisions. In State v. French, No. COA24-704 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), the Court of Appeals upheld three consecutive sentences for greater and lesser assaults, despite the inclusion in the relevant statutes of a some-other-provision-of-law clause. By contrast, in State v. Jenkins, No. COA24-889 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug 6, 2025), the Court of Appeals reversed an additional sentence for discharging a firearm within an enclosure because G.S. 14-34.10 contains a some-other-provision-of-law clause. This post examines the intent and scope of the SOPL clause.
News Roundup
Jasveen Sangha, dubbed the “Ketamine Queen,” pled guilty on Wednesday to selling Matthew Perry the drugs that resulted in his death, as reported by the AP and ABC news. Perry was found dead at his home in Los Angeles, California, on October 28, 2023. Prosecutors said that Perry bought ketamine from Sangha four days before his death. Sangha pled guilty to five federal charges, including one count of distribution of ketamine resulting in death or serious bodily injury. She is scheduled to be sentenced on December 10. Read on for more criminal law news.
New Limits on MARs in Noncapital Cases
My colleagues have been blogging about some of the changes to our criminal law wrought by recent legislation. Session Law 2025-70 also amends G.S. 15A-1415, which governs the grounds that a defendant may assert by motion for appropriate relief (MAR), and establishes limitations as to time. Whereas the statute previously listed grounds that a defendant may assert by MAR at any time after the verdict, the recent amendments create a seven-year limit on most noncapital MARs. This post addresses the changes to G.S. 15A-1415 (effective Dec. 1, 2025).
News Roundup
The Alamo announced last week that it’s got Pee-wee’s stolen red bicycle, as foretold in the 1985 film “Pee-wee’s Big Adventure.” But the bike is not in the basement. The AP reports that the iconic bicycle will serve as a centerpiece in the Mays Family Legacy Gallery, part of a new visitor center and museum scheduled to open in fall 2027. Read on for more criminal law news.
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.