North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

This week, the General Assembly passed H 307, Iryna’s Law. The bill follows the murder of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte last month. The measure is now with Governor Stein. If it becomes law, it would make a number of changes to proceedings involving pretrial release; would add a new aggravating sentencing factor; would alter the way magistrates may be disciplined; would require hearings on capital MARs normally be held within 24 months of filing; and would expand the permissible methods of execution, among other things. WRAL has some information about the bill’s progress through the legislature here, and a piece here exploring the decision that Governor Stein now must make to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature. He has 10 days to decide. Keep reading for more news.

Last year, I blogged about calendaring practices and whether it is appropriate for an ADA to unilaterally reset a matter in superior court after the court has approved a date […]

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.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on September 17, 2025.

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.

House Bill 620, chaptered as S.L. 2025-54, enacted several changes affecting judicial authority and administration that may be of interest to practitioners generally. This post will review the legislation’s provisions affecting removal proceedings, the jurisdiction of specially assigned superior court judges, substitution of one trial judge for another, age limits for service as a trial judge, protocols for recovery courts, the disclosure of courtroom audio recordings, training and educational materials for jurors, and the appointment of magistrates.

This post summarizes published criminal law and related cases released by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during August 2025. Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous summaries of Fourth Circuit cases are available here.

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.

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.

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.