Latest posts in category Evidence on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

As I mentioned last month, Timothy Heinle and I are nearing completion of an updated Superior Court Judges’ Benchbook chapter on Evidence Issues in Criminal Cases Involving Child Victims and […]

Earlier this year, I attended the North Carolina Oral Fluid Summit sponsored by the Governor’s Highway Safety Program and the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility. The focus of the Summit […]

The words “available” and “unavailable” are used regularly when referring to witnesses whose out-of-court statements parties would like to admit into evidence. However, in working with Timothy Heinle to revise […]

Courts look with particular suspicion on character evidence, and a number of rules seek to confine that sort of evidence to its proper place. Two recent cases illustrate the problem. […]

In mounting a diminished capacity or voluntary intoxication defense in a first-degree murder case, the defense attempts to “negate” the element of specific intent, premeditation, or deliberation. To negate in […]

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.

Child welfare records maintained by a department of social services (DSS) contain sensitive information that parties in various proceedings are often interested in seeing. A complex web of state and federal law governs the disclosure of these records – more than I can cover here. For purposes of this post, it’s sufficient to know that G.S. 108A-80 is a broadly applicable confidentiality statute that applies to DSS and covers client information generally. Absent limited statutory exceptions, G.S. 108A-80(a) prohibits disclosure of information related to individuals who apply for or receive public assistance or social services, including child welfare services.

Child welfare information is also subject to an additional set of confidentiality restrictions under Chapter 7B of the North Carolina General Statutes. For example, G.S. 7B-302 makes information that is obtained by DSS related to a juvenile’s alleged abuse, neglect, or dependency (A/N/D) confidential. Similarly, G.S. 7B-2901(b) requires DSS to maintain confidential records of juveniles it has in its custody. Both statutes provide exceptions to the confidentiality requirement.

This post explores how the exceptions in G.S. 7B-302 and 7B-2901(b) apply when a party—either in a North Carolina civil case where DSS is not a party or in a criminal or delinquency matter—wants DSS child welfare records about someone other than themselves. Note that in this post I use the term ‘DSS records’ to refer to child welfare records maintained by DSS, including those from juvenile A/N/D proceedings.

In light of the recent Court of Appeals opinion State v. Moore, this post is a follow-up to the 2018 blog post State v. Fincher: No Foundation Required for DRE Testimony by my colleague Shea Denning.

Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of expert testimony. Rule 702(a) requires the proponent to show that the expert testimony is based on sufficient facts or data (Rule 702(a)(1)), the product of reliable principles and methods (Rule 702(a)(2)), and the result of the witness reliably applying the principles and methods to the facts of the case (Rule 702(a)(3)). That said, there are circumstances where the proponent is not required to make these showings. Rule 702(a1)(2) permits a witness to give expert testimony about whether a person was impaired, and by what category of impairing substance, “notwithstanding any other provision of law” when the witness holds a current certification as a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE). In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals held that the proponent of expert testimony by a witness properly certified as a DRE must nonetheless meet the showing required by Rule 702(a)(3) that the testimony is the result of the witness reliably applying the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Read on for more detail.

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!

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.