North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

 The lead criminal law story this week relates to the Illinois deputy charged in connection with the fatal shooting of Sonya Massey in her Springfield, Illinois home on July 6. After the 36-year-old woman called 911 to report a suspicious person nearby, local deputies responded. Once deputies were inside the home, Massey reportedly acted strangely and seemed confused. At one point, she moved a pot of boiling water from the stove to the sink, prompting the officers to back away from her. Massey asked the officers where they were going, and one stated that they were moving away from the water. Massey replied with a religious rebuke. Deputy Grayson responded to this by drawing his pistol, pointing it at her, and threatening to shoot her. The woman apologized, put her hands up, and ducked, but Grayson quickly fired his weapon multiple times, hitting Massey in the head and killing her. When another deputy suggested getting a medical kit to help, Grayson advised that medical assistance was futile. The full incident was captured on body camera. Grayson has been charged with first-degree murder (and other charges) and was fired from the department. Another story reports that Grayson worked for six different law enforcement agencies over the last four years. Read on for more criminal law news.

I am pleased to announce that Belal Elrahal joined our faculty earlier this month. Belal is working in the field of criminal law and procedure and will specialize in impaired […]

This post summarizes published criminal law and related cases released by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during June 2024. Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous summaries of Fourth Circuit cases are available here.

Session Law 2024-17 enacts changes to the law regarding the scope of original juvenile jurisdiction beginning with offenses committed on or after December 1, 2024. Law changes regarding the existing process to transfer a case from juvenile to superior court will also take effect at that time. Read on for a description of the changes.

The biggest news story of the week is a gunman’s attempt to assassinate former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday. The gunman, identified as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired eight rounds from a semiautomatic AR-style rifle in Trump’s direction. Trump was struck in the ear, rally attendee Corey Comperatore was killed, and two other men were critically wounded in the attack. The New York Times analyzed video, audio, and photographs of the event and created this narrative video timeline. The Times video ends with this question: Why was the former president allowed to remain on stage when the threat emerged minutes before shots rang out?

At the Criminal Justice Innovation Lab, we’re focused on an evidence-based approach to criminal justice issues. We deal with a lot of data and try to make that information relevant […]

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. ___; 2024 WL 3074423 (June 21, 2024) (Kagan, J.). The case settled a lingering question in Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause jurisprudence: Does the Confrontation Clause permit substitute analyst testimony?

Courts have been split on the question, with North Carolina and Arizona among the jurisdictions that have generally allowed this type of expert testimony. Substitute analyst testimony arises when the person who performed forensic testing for use in a criminal trial is not available to testify, and the prosecution uses a substitute expert—one who was not necessarily involved in the testing—to present an independent opinion based on the original analyst’s forensic report. This practice derives from the evidentiary rule that an expert is allowed to rely on otherwise inadmissible information when it is used to form the basis of the expert’s opinion. N.C. R. Evid. 703. The underlying forensic report is treated as non-hearsay, offered only as the basis of the testifying expert’s opinion, not as substantive evidence. Instead, it is the testifying analyst’s independent opinion that is admitted substantively, and the defendant is only entitled to cross-examine the testifying expert (and not the person who performed the testing). This practice does not offend the Confrontation Clause, the argument has gone, because only testimonial hearsay statements are covered by the Confrontation Clause. Since the underlying forensic report is not offered for its truth when used as the basis of opinion, it is not hearsay and does not implicate the Confrontation Clause. State v. Ortiz-Zape, 367 N.C. 1 (2013)

Not so, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Today, we reject that view. When an expert conveys an absent analyst’s statements in support of his opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth.” Smith Slip op. at 1-2. Smith thus overrules Ortiz-Zape and its progeny on this question, and represents a significant shift in state law. (If this topic sounds familiar, I wrote a blog post last year previewing the Smith case.) Today’s post examines the impact and reach of Smith in North Carolina and offers advice for defenders facing substitute analyst issues. Read on for the details.

Back in May, it appeared that North Carolina lawmakers were moving toward a repeal of automatic expunctions of dismissed charges. However, in recent weeks, they have reversed course and a law providing for such expunctions was signed by the Governor this week. The law requires cases to be automatically expunged between six and seven months after all charges are dismissed. Expunged files are to be retained by the clerk and will be available to the person whose case was expunged as well as the district attorney. The new law incorporates recommendations of a committee tasked with addressing logistical problems that arose after the passage of a previous automatic expunction law.

Read on for more criminal law news.

On June 25, 2024, changes to the HIPAA Privacy Rule aimed at supporting reproductive health care privacy went into effect. Last week, I published a blog post about these changes, including the creation of three new types of prohibited uses and disclosures of protected health information (PHI). This post addresses another major change to the law: a new attestation requirement that applies to four types of uses and disclosures when the PHI at issue is “potentially related” to reproductive health care. It’s not just covered entities and business associates that need to understand this new requirement- judicial officials, law enforcement, health oversight agencies, and medical examiners who frequently request PHI to carry out their official duties will likely encounter situations that require them to comply with the new attestation requirement, too.

Across North Carolina, there are 55 child advocacy centers (CACs) providing services to children who have experienced maltreatment, including physical or sexual abuse.  Local law enforcement agencies and county departments […]