blankDaniel Spiegel

blank

News Roundup

After the recent passage of HB 307, “Iryna’s Law,” questions are arising about whether executions will restart in North Carolina after a 19-year hiatus. Though the death penalty has been on the books during this period, legal challenges and practical issues have prevented the death penalty from being imposed.

The main change in the new law is that it allows for execution by electrocution and lethal gas. The law also directs officials to find a method other than lethal injection if lethal injection is declared unconstitutional by a state court or is otherwise unavailable. Some wonder whether North Carolina will join five other states in allowing execution by firing squad (the AP relates the history of this method here). Some experts are skeptical that these new provisions will result in the death penalty being imposed, however, given pending challenges under the Racial Justice Act as well as other appellate and post-conviction proceedings. Court orders entered at the superior court level in 2014 and 2019 have also suspended executions until litigation pertaining to the constitutionality of the method and the RJA is resolved.

Read on for more criminal law (and Halloween) news.

Read more

blank

New Bulletin on Confidential Informants in North Carolina: Discovery, Audio/Video Recordings, and Motions to Reveal Identity

Law enforcement officers regularly work with Confidential Informants (CIs) when investigating organized crime or building cases against individuals in leadership positions within criminal enterprises. CIs are most commonly involved in drug cases, ranging from high-level trafficking to street-level dealing, but they may also play a role in the investigation of other crimes such as bribery, fraud, or firearms trafficking.

When cases involving CIs make it to North Carolina courts, difficult questions often arise as to how to balance the state’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the informant’s identity with the defendant’s rights to a fair trial and open-file discovery. These questions go beyond the traditional binary of whether the CI’s identity should or should not be revealed to the defense. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957). Especially as technology evolves and CI activity is regularly captured through audio/video recordings, judges must navigate challenging decisions regarding precisely what should be turned over to the defense.

Read more

blank

Revisiting Simeon v. Hardin: Part I, Pretrial Delay

Last year, I blogged about calendaring practices and whether it is appropriate for an ADA to unilaterally reset a matter in superior court after the court has approved a date for trial. In writing and teaching on calendaring authority, I am surprised how few practitioners are familiar with the landmark case of Simeon v. Hardin, … Read more

blank

News Roundup

In response to the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte on August 22, North Carolina legislators are proposing various criminal justice reforms. Brittany noted last week that Republican legislators are advocating for various changes such as restarting the death penalty, ending cashless bail for those with felony convictions, and mandating that judicial officials consider homelessness and mental health when determining conditions of pretrial release.

This week, Democratic representative Laura Budd responded with a different slate of reforms, calling for funding for 5,000 additional local police officers statewide, along with 5,000 crisis assistance co-responders. She is also proposing that judicial officials initiate mental health commitments where appropriate and that people found incompetent to proceed be tried in state hospitals.

Yesterday, Chief Justice Paul Newby of the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an order creating a new Pretrial Release Task Force to survey pretrial release practices statewide and make recommendations as to best practices and potential legislative changes.

Read on for more criminal justice news.

Read more

blank

Warrantless Review of Electronic Monitoring Data: Cases Outside North Carolina

In February, I blogged about State v. Thomas, 295 N.C. App. 564 (2024), and whether law enforcement can review ankle-monitoring data without a warrant. The defendant in Thomas was on post-release supervision when officers pulled his location data, and the Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless retrieval of the data. However, questions remain about whether a warrant is necessary when a supervisee is on probation or pretrial release. Although North Carolina appellate courts have not directly addressed these questions, courts outside the state have in recent years. This post examines some of the cases.

Read more

blank

Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (August 6, 2025)

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on August 6, 2025.

The State presented sufficient evidence to establish that a hammer was used as a dangerous weapon to support conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon.

State v. Blackburn, No. COA24-1016 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025). The victim was sleeping in his Mazda as he did every night when he was awakened by banging on the outside of his car. Two men pulled the victim from the car and held a gun to his head. Three men threatened to shoot him if he didn’t hand over his money, and when the victim stated he didn’t have any money, the men pushed him against the car facing the vehicle, and one of the men hit the victim with a hammer. The defendant stated he hit the victim with a hammer on the back of the victim’s shoulder, while the victim testified that he was hit on the back of the head and neck, fell to the ground, and lost consciousness for a short period. When he came to, he saw the men driving away in the Mazda. The defendant was apprehended near the stolen vehicle later that night. The defendant was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon after a jury trial.

Read more

blank

News Roundup

The town of Wendell, NC, recently purchased two drones and associated equipment for $20,000 to support the police department. Officials state the drones will help locate missing or endangered people, find criminal suspects, investigate traffic crashes, and support special operations. A sergeant noted the drones could be particularly helpful in locating children or adults with cognitive issues who go missing. The drones have heat-detecting cameras, live tracking, high-powered zoom, and distance-measuring tools. Proponents are optimistic that the technology will help officers by providing a perspective on chaotic scenes before officers go in blind. However, civil liberties groups have concerns that the technology may lead to intrusions on privacy. Law enforcement drone programs are proliferating throughout North Carolina in places such as Asheville, Burlington, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, and Winston-Salem.

Read on for more criminal law news.

Read more

blank

A New Way to Authenticate Video? State v. Windseth and the Business Records Exception

Special thanks to Sloan Godbey, Summer Law Fellow at UNC SOG, for their significant contributions to this post.

In March of last year, I did a thorough review of North Carolina cases addressing the authentication of surveillance video. I created a chart to understand what ingredients are adequate (and inadequate) to lay a foundation. That chart can be found here, and the related blog here.

However, a case came down in March of this year that raises significant questions about how video is authenticated, or at least introduces a new potential avenue for authenticating video. I’m afraid my cherished chart may soon be of limited utility. But such is the way the law develops!

Read more

blank

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.

Read more