North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

If you thought it was only corner-cutting lawyers and tech-savvy college students that were relying on artificial intelligence to do their work for them, this week may force you to reconsider. Reuters reports here that “[f]ederal judges in Mississippi and New Jersey have withdrawn written rulings in a pair of unrelated lawsuits after lawyers in the cases said they contained factual inaccuracies and other serious errors.” Although the judges have not revealed how the “inaccuracies” and “errors” came to be, the types of mistakes involved will be familiar to anyone who uses generative AI or even reads about it: phantom quotations from real cases; citations to testimony from non-existent declarants; recitations of allegations that were never made; and fundamentally flawed legal “interpretation.” Keep reading for more news, curated and written up by a real, live human being.

As regular readers know, the General Assembly passed a slew of statutes affecting our criminal law this summer, including controlled substances law.  In S.L. 2025-70 (S.B. 429), the legislature created the new offense of exposing a child to a controlled substance. The same session law increased the penalties for most fentanyl offenses. With  S.L. 2025-71 (S.B. 311), the legislature created several new crimes addressing the unauthorized possession or distribution of embalming fluid. These changes all become effective December 1, 2025. Read on for the details.   

Several times a year, I teach different groups about criminal domestic violence laws in North Carolina. Last year, I highlighted the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV) under G.S. 14-32.5 in many of the sessions, but there were many unresolved questions. Earlier this month, the General Assembly passed Session Law 2025-70 (Senate Bill 429) which, among other things, answers many of those questions. This post reviews the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and the pending changes to the law.

In case you missed it, I wanted to remind folks that the Public Defense Education team here, with support from the Office of Indigent Defense Services, is proud to offer […]

A few weeks ago, the General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed into law, S.L. 2025-71. The bill makes quite a few changes to the criminal law. It creates new crimes, like a larceny offense specific to gift cards; enhances the penalties for existing crimes, including certain racing and reckless driving offenses; and creates sentencing enhancements when a gun is used in connection with specified drug crimes and offenses involving breaking or entering. Today’s post focuses on the bill’s amendment to G.S. 14-51, which addresses “first and second degree burglary.” Does the amendment quietly remove the  element of burglary that requires the offense to be committed in the nighttime?

The Alamo announced last week that it’s got Pee-wee’s stolen red bicycle, as foretold in the 1985 film “Pee-wee’s Big Adventure.” But the bike is not in the basement. The AP reports that the iconic bicycle will serve as a centerpiece in the Mays Family Legacy Gallery, part of a new visitor center and museum scheduled to open in fall 2027. Read on for more criminal law news.

Special thanks to Sloan Godbey, Summer Law Fellow at UNC SOG, for their significant contributions to this post.

In March of last year, I did a thorough review of North Carolina cases addressing the authentication of surveillance video. I created a chart to understand what ingredients are adequate (and inadequate) to lay a foundation. That chart can be found here, and the related blog here.

However, a case came down in March of this year that raises significant questions about how video is authenticated, or at least introduces a new potential avenue for authenticating video. I’m afraid my cherished chart may soon be of limited utility. But such is the way the law develops!

Back in February, the Court of Appeals decided State v. Nanes, COA24-487, ___ N.C. App. ___; 912 S.E.2d 202 (Feb. 19, 2025) (summarized here). The case considered and ultimately rejected facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to G.S. 14-415.1, our state prohibition on possession of firearms by a felon. Nanes squarely rejected the idea that G.S. 14-415.1 was facially unconstitutional but left open the possibility that the statute may be unconstitutional as applied to a different defendant. In State v. Ducker, COA24-373, ___ N.C. App. ___ ; ___ S.E.2d ___(May 7, 2025) (summarized here), the Court of Appeals closed the door on that possibility, ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to convicted felons and rejecting the need for a felony-by-felony analysis for as-applied Second Amendment challenges. Both Nanes and Ducker also considered and rejected related claims under Article I, Sec. 30 of the North Carolina Constitution. Today’s post examines these decisions.

The law that governs which cases begin under juvenile jurisdiction changed three times between 2019 and 2025. Each change applies to offenses beginning on and after the effective date of the legislation and is impacted by subsequent changes. This blog pulls the different changes together in one place, providing the quick reference chart below to explain which cases begin under juvenile jurisdiction and which cases begin under criminal jurisdiction.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on July 16, 2025.