Latest posts in category Uncategorized on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

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 […]

Last week, Louisiana became the first state to allow surgical castration as punishment for sex crimes against children. Effective August 1, the legislation gives Louisiana judges the option to sentence someone to surgical castration after the person has been convicted of certain aggravated sex crimes — including rape, incest and molestation — against a child under 13. The punishment is not a mandatory one, and a judge will be able to order the punishment at his or her discretion.

According to this AP article, a handful of states, including Louisiana, California, Florida and Texas, have laws allowing for chemical castration for those guilty of certain sex crimes. In some of those states, offenders can instead opt for the surgical procedure, but no other state allows judges to impose surgical castration outright. Chemical castration uses medications that block testosterone production to decrease sex drive. Surgical castration is a much more invasive procedure that involves the removal of both testicles or ovaries.

Proponents of the law hope the new possible punishment will deter people from committing sex crimes against children. Opponents argue that it is “cruel and unusual” punishment in violation of the U.S. Constitution and that it is sure to face legal challenges.

Is the court bound to order a certain disposition in a delinquency matter when the juvenile and the prosecutor agree to that disposition as part of an agreement? The short answer is no. The Juvenile Code requires the court to engage in certain procedures, to consider certain factors, and to order disposition in accord with certain parameters when developing and ordering a delinquency disposition. The mandates on the court cannot be delegated to the parties and they are not optional. This post describes these mandates and explores the implications for dispositional outcomes that are agreed upon by the juvenile and the prosecutor.

The biggest story in criminal law this week was undoubtedly the arrest of Justin Timberlake, former member of The Mickey Mouse Club and NSYNC, on charges of driving while intoxicated. A police officer in Sag Harbor, New York, reportedly observed a gray 2025 BMW run a stop sign, and when the officer pulled the car over, he found the Prince of Pop Justin Timberlake (the title is shared with Justin Bieber and Bruno Mars) behind the wheel. According to the arrest report filed Tuesday, Timberlake had bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and was unsteady on his feet. He performed poorly on field sobriety tests. NBC News reports that Timberlake told the officer he had one martini. His wife Jessica Biel is reportedly not happy about her husband’s arrest.

Read on for more criminal law news.

As AP News reports, Hunter Biden, the son of President Biden, was convicted of three felony offenses in a federal court in Delaware this week. The convictions include making a false statement to a licensed gun dealer, making false statements on the firearm purchase application form, and illegal possession of a gun. The younger Biden falsely represented that he was not disqualified as an unlawful user of controlled substances (one of the disqualifying grounds for gun possession under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3)). Biden is expected to appeal. One of his arguments in post-trial proceedings will be a challenge under the Second Amendment to the federal ban on gun possession by unlawful drug users. The trial court rejected a facial challenge to the law in pretrial proceedings but reserved judgment on the argument that the law was unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Biden under New York Rifle and Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). CNN has a report on this aspect of the case, here. As Shea reported in last week’s News Roundup, this is the first of two criminal trials faced by the president’s son. An additional federal trial in California on alleged tax crimes is expected to occur in September. Read on for more criminal law news.

Three years ago, the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Corbett, 2021-NCSC-18, ___ N.C. ___, 855 S.E.2d 228, 252 (2021), affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of the defendants’ convictions for second degree murder. The case garnered national and international attention. The victim, Jason Corbett, was a citizen of Ireland, who had relocated to Davidson County, North Carolina, in 2011 following the 2006 death of his first wife, who was the mother of his two children. Jason moved to North Carolina with his two children and his then-romantic partner, Molly Martens, who had been his children’s au pair in Ireland. Jason and Molly married later that year.

Molly’s parents, Thomas and Sharon Martens, who lived in Tennessee, visited the Corbett home on August 1, 2015. Thomas, a retired FBI agent and former attorney, testified that he awoke to the sounds of a struggle in the middle of the night and discovered Jason choking Molly. Thomas said he attempted to stop Jason by hitting him with an aluminum baseball bat. Molly also hit Jason with a brick paver. Jason’s skull was fractured from multiple blows, and he died at the scene. Both Thomas and Molly were charged with murder. The North Carolina Supreme Court determined that the trial court erred by (1) excluding hearsay statements from the children that their father was abusive toward Molly and that their father had become angry that evening upon his daughter awakening him, and (2) by excluding testimony from Thomas that he heard Molly yell “don’t hurt my dad” during the altercation.

Molly and Thomas were released from prison on Thursday: Molly from the the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women in Raleigh and Thomas from the Caldwell Correctional Center in Lenoir. Following the state supreme court’s decision, each entered pleas to voluntary manslaughter and served about seven more months behind bars.

Keep reading for more criminal law news.