This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on September 3, 2025. In defendant’s trial for felonious possession of stolen goods, admission of […]
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.
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.
A few months ago, I blogged about the legislative changes that took effect last year surrounding the processing of defendants who are subject to immigration detainers. The North Carolina General Assembly revisited the topic this legislative session in S.L. 2025-85 (H 318). Effective October 1, 2025, the law modifies some of the provisions enacted by S.L. 2024-55 (H 10) and creates a new pretrial release procedure that requires judicial officials to determine legal residency for defendants charged with certain offenses.
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.
In February, I blogged about State v. Thomas, 295 N.C. App. 564 (2024), and whether law enforcement can review ankle-monitoring data without a warrant. The defendant in Thomas was on post-release supervision when officers pulled his location data, and the Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless retrieval of the data. However, questions remain about whether a warrant is necessary when a supervisee is on probation or pretrial release. Although North Carolina appellate courts have not directly addressed these questions, courts outside the state have in recent years. This post examines some of the cases.
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.
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.
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on August 20, 2025.
An indictment for injuring property to obtain non-ferrous metals was sufficient despite the lack of any allegation concerning the value of the property damage.
State v. Council, No. COA25-78 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025) (Hampson). In this Durham County case, the defendant was suspected of stealing a catalytic converter from a truck. He was indicted for, and convicted of, felony larceny and felony injury to property to obtain non-ferrous metals. He appealed, asserting that the indictment for the injury to property charge was defective for failing to specify the value of the property damage.
Erik Menendez was denied parole by a panel of California commissioners yesterday. He and his brother Lyle were sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for fatally shooting their parents in the family’s Beverly Hills mansion in 1989.
During his 10-hour hearing, he offered a detailed account of how he was raised and why he made the choices he did, both at the time of his parents’ killing and during his decades in prison. A panel of two parole commissioners said Menendez was unsuitable for release. They said his actions in prison—including affiliating with a prison gang and having a cellphone in violation of the rules—showed he was a risk to public safety.
Menendez can come before the parole board again in three years if the decision is not overturned. Lyle Menendez’s case is set to be heard by the parole board today.