House Bill 620, chaptered as S.L. 2025-54, enacted several changes affecting judicial authority and administration that may be of interest to practitioners generally. This post will review the legislation’s provisions affecting removal proceedings, the jurisdiction of specially assigned superior court judges, substitution of one trial judge for another, age limits for service as a trial judge, protocols for recovery courts, the disclosure of courtroom audio recordings, training and educational materials for jurors, and the appointment of magistrates.
Judicial Authority and Administration
Pretrial Custody Release: Notes from Other Jurisdictions
When a person is arrested, a law enforcement officer must take that person before a judicial official without unnecessary delay. Subject to certain statutory exceptions, defendants charged with most noncapital offenses are entitled to pretrial release in accordance with G.S. 15A-534, which requires that at least one of five types of release be imposed before a defendant can be released. One type of release a judicial official may impose on a defendant is a “custody release,” under which a defendant is placed “in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise him.” G.S. 15A-534(a)(3). This is the extent to which the custody release is described. The North Carolina general statutes do not provide additional guidance as to qualifications of a custodian, terms of the supervision, or penalties for improper supervision.
Other states have pretrial release statutes that are identical or substantially similar to that of North Carolina, explicitly providing for pretrial release of a defendant into the custody of an individual or organization. Many of those statutes—like that of North Carolina—do not offer further guidance regarding the custodian’s supervision of the defendant. However, there are a few that offer additional detail about the parameters of the custody release.
This post highlights custody release provisions in select states. While none of them is binding on this condition in our state, North Carolina judicial officials may find the information useful in crafting their local pretrial release policies.
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.
What happens when the original judge is no longer available?
Questions sometimes arise in criminal cases about whether a new judge may pick up duties initially undertaken by another judge who is no longer available. Consider the following scenarios.
- Trial begins with Judge A presiding. Judge A falls ill on day 3 of trial. May Judge B substitute as the presiding judge?
- Judge A presided over a suppression hearing in December 2024, just before her term expired at the end of the year. Judge A announced her ruling in open court and directed the prevailing party to prepare an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. Judge A did not sign the order before her term expired. May Judge B enter an order containing findings of fact and memorializing Judge A’s ruling?
- Judge A also presided over a probation violation hearing in December 2024. She determined that the defendant violated the terms of his probation, and she modified the judgment, announcing her ruling in court. She did not sign the judgment before her term expired. May Judge B sign the judgment memorializing Judge A’s decision?
The answers to the questions posed above are, respectively (1) yes, (2) no, and (3) maybe. Keep reading to learn why.
Justice Riggs, Seat 6, and Holdover Status
In September 2023, then-Governor Roy Cooper appointed Allison Riggs to fill a vacancy on the North Carolina Supreme Court created by the retirement of Associate Justice Michael Morgan. As an appointee, Associate Justice Riggs was eligible to hold the seat (Seat 6) until January 1 following the next general election held more than 60 days after the vacancy occurred. In Riggs’ case, that election was held on November 5, 2024. In the normal course of events, the results of that election would have been certified in December 2024 and the prevailing candidate would have taken office on January 1, 2025. The election did not, however, follow the usual path.
The vote tally for Seat 6 was unusually close. After a recount, Riggs maintained a slim 734 vote lead over her challenger, current Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin. Judge Griffin filed election protests challenging votes cast by more than 60,000 individuals, alleging on various grounds that these persons were ineligible to vote in this election. The North Carolina State Board of Elections (“State Board”) assumed jurisdiction over Griffin’s protests and rejected his challenges. Griffin thereafter sought relief from the North Carolina Supreme Court, and the State Board removed the matter to federal court. The federal court abstained from reaching the merits and remanded the matter to the North Carolina Supreme Court on January 6. The next day (three days before the State Board was to certify the election results) the state supreme court granted Griffin’s motion for a temporary stay barring the State Board from certifying the results.
There is a lot in this situation to unpack, but I wanted to address a top-line issue: Given that the election has not been certified, who holds Seat 6? And what happens for other elected and appointed officers when their terms expire and no successor has yet been elected and qualified or appointed?