Procedure

blank

Disclosure of Child Welfare Records in Cases Where DSS is Not a Party

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.

Read more

blank

Domestic Violence Charts Available

I am happy to announce the release of a new resource on Domestic Violence Crimes and the 48-Hour Rule. This guide is intended primarily to assist magistrates and others in applying the 48-hour rule as described in G.S. 15A-534.1. The printed version of the guide uses a trifold design which opens to one long chart of offenses covered under the terms of the statute.

Read more

blank

Laws Taking Effect October 1

The North Carolina General Assembly has been quite busy this session. This year’s legislative updates span a range of topics within the world of criminal and motor vehicle law. Summaries of those enactments will be published on the School of Government website once the General Assembly adjourns for the session. For now, I’ll use this post to highlight the laws taking effect tomorrow, October 1, 2025.

Read more

Remote Hearings for Prisoners

During the pandemic, we got accustomed to doing certain court proceedings virtually—initially under authority of the Chief Justice’s emergency orders (which Shea discussed here), and later by statute, under G.S. 7A-49.6. That law allows “proceedings of all types” (with some exceptions and caveats) to be conducted using an audio and video transmission. The Department of Adult Correction (DAC) has issued new guidance on its process for scheduling virtual proceedings. Their General Counsel’s Office asked me to help spread the word about it to court officials.

Read more

blank

Legislature Revisits Law on Immigration Detainers

A few months ago, I blogged about the legislative changes that took effect last year surrounding the processing of defendants who are subject to immigration detainers. The North Carolina General Assembly revisited the topic this legislative session in S.L. 2025-85 (H 318). Effective October 1, 2025, the law modifies some of the provisions enacted by S.L. 2024-55 (H 10) and creates a new pretrial release procedure that requires judicial officials to determine legal residency for defendants charged with certain offenses.

Read more

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).

Read more

Summer 2025 Motor Vehicle Law Changes

The legislature enacted a raft of changes this summer to motor vehicle and criminal law. This post examines three session laws that enhanced criminal penalties and revised regulations for motor vehicle offenses and operation. The changes cover broad ground, including changing vehicle inspection requirements, authorizing speed-measuring cameras, and heightening penalties for certain motor vehicle offenses that result in injury. Read on to learn more.

Read more

blank

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.

Read more

blank

Filling in the Gaps: Changes on the Horizon for Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence

Several times a year, I teach different groups about criminal domestic violence laws in North Carolina. Last year, I highlighted the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV) under G.S. 14-32.5 in many of the sessions, but there were many unresolved questions. Earlier this month, the General Assembly passed Session Law 2025-70 (Senate Bill 429) which, among other things, answers many of those questions. This post reviews the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and the pending changes to the law.

Read more

blank

State v. Tate: DNA Analysis, the Confrontation Clause, and Testimonial Hearsay

My colleague Joe Hyde blogged last week about the Court of Appeals’ determination in State v. Tate, __ N.C. App. ___ (June 18, 2025), that the trial court did not err when it instructed the jury on a theory that was not alleged in the indictment. I’m returning to Tate this week to discuss another aspect of the Court’s holding, namely its determination that the defendant’s confrontation clause rights were not violated when an expert from the State Crime Lab testified to an opinion that was based in part on DNA test results generated by private third-party laboratory. This post will unpack the court’s analysis of that issue and will consider what it might mean for testimony by substitute analysts more generally.

Read more