After law enforcement arrests someone, they must take that person before a judicial official “without unnecessary delay” pursuant to G.S. 15A-501(2). This is for the judicial official—often a magistrate—to conduct an initial appearance. During an initial appearance, magistrates review the validity of the arrest, issue charging documents, inform the arrested person of their rights, and set pretrial release conditions (if the person is eligible). Considering these essential tasks, when may law enforcement or magistrates delay an initial appearance? And how would a delay affect a magistrate’s decision to impose an impaired driver hold under G.S. 15A-534.2, or vice versa? Read on to find out.
Uncategorized
News Roundup
Former Durham Bull Wander Franco was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor in the Dominican Republic this week. This ESPN story reports that he received a suspended sentence, while “[t]he mother of the [14 year old] victim . . . was convicted of sexually trafficking her daughter and sentenced to 10 years in prison after prosecutors proved she sought financial gains from Franco and laundered money.” Franco was a star for the Bulls and quickly moved up to the major league level. He had just signed an 11-year, $182 million contract with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays when he was arrested. Whether he will be able to resume his baseball career is not clear. He may have difficulty obtaining a visa to enter the United States, and Major League Baseball may take action against him as well. Additionally, he is still facing charges in his home country connected to the alleged unlawful possession of a firearm. Keep reading for more news.
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.
Findings Required in Delinquency Dispositional Orders
Dispositional orders in delinquency cases must contain “appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.” G.S. 7B-2512(a). What constitutes appropriate findings of fact is a question that North Carolina appellate courts have repeatedly addressed. This blog explains the requirement for findings in delinquency dispositional orders and provides examples of findings that the North Carolina Court of Appeals has found to be sufficient.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (June 18, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on June 18, 2025. Previously, summaries were added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, but due to personnel changes and resource limitations, that resource is no longer available. We will continue to post and archive new summaries here on the blog.
News Roundup
Two immigration enforcement bills have passed at the General Assembly and are now on Governor Josh Stein’s desk. The deadline for his signature or veto is today.
The first bill, SB 153, contains several provisions, one of which would require state law enforcement agencies such as the State Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety to contact ICE if they have someone in custody who is not a legal resident or U.S. citizen. State law enforcement officers would be trained to act as immigration officers pursuant to the 287(g) program.
The second bill, HB 318, makes updates to the previously passed HB 10. Existing law, discussed by Brittany here, requires county jails to inquire into the immigration status of individuals charged with certain felonies and high-level misdemeanors and contact ICE if the jail is unable to verify that an individual is a legal resident. The new law would expand the list of crimes for which jails would have to check status. In addition, existing law mandates that a 48-hour hold be imposed upon receipt of an ICE detainer. The updated law would require that the 48-hour hold be imposed once the individual would otherwise be released, rather than upon receipt of the detainer.
Read on for more criminal law news.
Adult Protection Multidisciplinary Team Workshop: Apply Now!
If you’re working to protect vulnerable adults in your community, you know how important it is to have the right people at the table to provide effective and efficient solutions. That’s why we’re bringing together adult protection multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) from across North Carolina for a hands-on workshop at the School of Government on September 29–30, 2025, focused on forming and strengthening MDTs.
How Far May Law Enforcement Officers Go in Misleading Suspects During Interrogations?
Law enforcement officers may mislead suspects during questioning. For example, an officer may falsely tell a suspect that an accomplice has confessed, or may falsely state that incriminating physical evidence has been found. Courts generally permit such deception, reasoning that misrepresentations can be effective tactics and are not necessarily so coercive as to render a resultant confession involuntary or unreliable. But just how far can an officer go?
News Roundup
The Trump administration sued the state of New York on Thursday over a law that blocks immigration officials from arresting people at New York courthouses, saying it purposely shields dangerous criminals. New York’s 2020 Protect Our Courts Act bans federal immigration officials from arresting people who are coming and going from courthouses or in court for proceedings unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. Democratic state Senator Brad Hoylman, the bill’s sponsor, said at the time the legislation was a rebuke to the first Trump administration’s practice of turning New York courts into “hunting grounds” for federal agents.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit said arrests in or near courthouses are safer for officers and the public because individuals are screened for weapons and contraband before entering the buildings. The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions targeting state or local policies the administration says interfere with immigration enforcement.