The most recent Court of Appeals delinquency-related decision, In the Matter of D.H., ___ N.C.App. ___ (August 20, 2025), is one of a very few opinions that addresses a trial court’s order placing a juvenile in the custody of a department of social services (DSS custody) through a delinquency disposition. This area of law can be very confusing for practitioners. At its core, the juvenile is in DSS custody without a petition alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency; instead, there is a petition alleging the juvenile is delinquent. The possibility of DSS custody is also available in undisciplined juvenile proceedings. This blog provides a brief overview of when the court can issue such an order in a delinquency or undisciplined case and explains why simultaneous nonsecure and secure custody orders and dispositional orders that include both DSS custody and commitment to a Youth Development Center (YDC) are a legal impossibility.
Uncategorized
News Roundup
In response to the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte on August 22, North Carolina legislators are proposing various criminal justice reforms. Brittany noted last week that Republican legislators are advocating for various changes such as restarting the death penalty, ending cashless bail for those with felony convictions, and mandating that judicial officials consider homelessness and mental health when determining conditions of pretrial release.
This week, Democratic representative Laura Budd responded with a different slate of reforms, calling for funding for 5,000 additional local police officers statewide, along with 5,000 crisis assistance co-responders. She is also proposing that judicial officials initiate mental health commitments where appropriate and that people found incompetent to proceed be tried in state hospitals.
Yesterday, Chief Justice Paul Newby of the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an order creating a new Pretrial Release Task Force to survey pretrial release practices statewide and make recommendations as to best practices and potential legislative changes.
Read on for more criminal justice news.
Devalle and the Good Moral Character Requirement for Law Enforcement Officers
Law enforcement officers in North Carolina must have good moral character to be certified, and may lose their certification if they lose their good moral character. The requirement of good moral character is neither unique to North Carolina nor exclusive to law enforcement officers. At the same time, it is a difficult standard to apply, as illustrated by a recent decision issued by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. This post provides context for that decision and explores its reasoning.
News Roundup
One of the top stories this week is that of Decarlos Brown, who was charged in the fatal stabbing of a woman on a train in Charlotte. The crime occurred on August 22, but the Charlotte Area Transit System recently released surveillance footage to local media outlets, causing the case to garner national attention. Brown has been charged federally with committing an act causing death on a mass transportation system, which could result in the death penalty if convicted. Brown has also been charged in North Carolina with first-degree murder.
Republican leaders of the North Carolina General Assembly have since announced their plans to introduce wide-ranging legislation when they reconvene later this month. The legislators are aiming to advance a package of proposed laws in part designed to tighten pretrial release rules, create more oversight of and less discretion for magistrates, and restart the use of the death penalty in the state. Any criminal legislation that is enacted will be covered on this blog and included in our annual legislative summaries.
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.
News Roundup
Jasveen Sangha, dubbed the “Ketamine Queen,” pled guilty on Wednesday to selling Matthew Perry the drugs that resulted in his death, as reported by the AP and ABC news. Perry was found dead at his home in Los Angeles, California, on October 28, 2023. Prosecutors said that Perry bought ketamine from Sangha four days before his death. Sangha pled guilty to five federal charges, including one count of distribution of ketamine resulting in death or serious bodily injury. She is scheduled to be sentenced on December 10. Read on for more criminal law news.
State v. Moore: Some Foundation Required for DRE Testimony
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.
News Roundup
For the third week, federal forces continue to perform law enforcement duties in the District of Columbia pursuant to President Trump’s efforts to combat an alleged epidemic of crime there. This is despite the Department of Justice’s data indicating that violent crime in the district is at a 30-year low. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has instructed federal prosecutors to seek the highest possible charges against arrestees and to attempt to hold arrestees in pretrial detention. Some law enforcement encounters have raised questions about their legality, with a local U.S. Magistrate Judge recently describing one case as involving “the most illegal search I’ve ever seen in my life,” according to this report. Separately, the executive branch has announced plans to similarly deploy federal law enforcement in other cities like Chicago and New York, according to this story. Read on for more criminal law news.
Case Summaries: N.C. Supreme Court (August 22, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Supreme Court released on August 22, 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.
No Interscholastic Athletics Participation in Public Schools After a Felony Conviction
A new school year is upon us and students across North Carolina are back in classrooms and on athletic fields. The question of who is eligible to participate in interscholastic athletics in North Carolina’s public schools is answered by the student participation rules established by the North Carolina State Board of Education. Those rules include a ban on participation following a felony conviction. This post explains the rule, explores how it applies to various legal outcomes, and offers considerations for practitioners involved in cases in which a minor is being prosecuted in criminal court for a felony charge.