Recent Blog Posts Page 19 on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

In North Carolina, a person must be indicted by a grand jury or must waive the right to indictment before he or she may prosecuted in superior court for a felony offense. N.C. Const. Art. 1, § 22. The right to a grand jury determination of whether a person must stand trial for a felony has been characterized as “one of the greatest safeguards of the freedom of the citizen.” State v. Barker, 107 N.C. 913, 919 (1890)

Grand juries consist of 18 members who typically serve 12-month terms, with nine grand jurors rotating off the grand jury every six months. At least 12 grand jurors must be present for the grand jury to lawfully conduct its business.

In contrast to the time-consuming voir dire associated with the selection of petit jurors for individual criminal trials, selection of grand jurors is a relatively brief process. The superior court judge presiding over the first session of criminal superior court after each January 1 and July 1 reviews questionnaires completed by grand jurors to determine whether those jurors randomly selected from the pool of summoned jurors meet the qualifications set forth in G.S. 9-3. G.S. 15A-622(b). The judge then considers hardship excuses related to the person’s inability to carry out the service of a grand juror. The judge does not inquire into potential grand jurors’ experiences, predilections, or knowledge of those involved in the case – issues frequently explored during the selection of trial jurors. Because the matters to be presented to the grand jury are not pre-determined, it is not possible to suss out a juror’s possible connection to or knowledge of those matters in advance of grand juror’s selection.

After impaneling the grand jury, the presiding judge appoints one of the grand jurors as its foreperson. G.S. 15A-622(e). In selecting that person, the judge may consider qualities reasonably related to that leadership role such as a grand juror’s education, work experience, ability to follow instructions, and prior grand jury experience. See State v. Cofield, 324 N.C. 452, 459 (1989). The foreperson presides over grand jury hearings and may excuse individual grand jurors from attending particular sessions. See G.S. 15A-622(d); 15A-623(b).

Once the grand jury is impaneled and the foreperson selected, its work is done in secret. See G.S. 15A-623(e). Only the grand jurors may be present in the grand jury room during deliberations and voting. G.S. 15A-623(d).

So what happens when a grand juror turns out to have a connection with a witness or potential defendant or independent knowledge related to the crime alleged in a bill of indictment?

If you’re working to protect vulnerable adults in your community, you know how important it is to have the right people at the table to provide effective and efficient solutions. That’s why we’re bringing together adult protection multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) from across North Carolina for a hands-on workshop at the School of Government on September 29–30, 2025, focused on forming and strengthening MDTs.

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

Law enforcement officers may mislead suspects during questioning. For example, an officer may falsely tell a suspect that an accomplice has confessed, or may falsely state that incriminating physical evidence has been found. Courts generally permit such deception, reasoning that misrepresentations can be effective tactics and are not necessarily so coercive as to render a resultant confession involuntary or unreliable. But just how far can an officer go?

The Trump administration sued the state of New York on Thursday over a law that blocks immigration officials from arresting people at New York courthouses, saying it purposely shields dangerous criminals. New York’s 2020 Protect Our Courts Act bans federal immigration officials from arresting people who are coming and going from courthouses or in court for proceedings unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. Democratic state Senator Brad Hoylman, the bill’s sponsor, said at the time the legislation was a rebuke to the first Trump administration’s practice of turning New York courts into “hunting grounds” for federal agents.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit said arrests in or near courthouses are safer for officers and the public because individuals are screened for weapons and contraband before entering the buildings. The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions targeting state or local policies the administration says interfere with immigration enforcement.

Under G.S. 15A-1380.5, a law that existed from late 1994 to late 1998, North Carolina defendants sentenced to life without parole for offenses committed between October 1, 1994, and November 30, 1998, are entitled to a judicial review of their sentence after 25 years of imprisonment. I’ve written about it on the blog twice before, here and here, and those posts cover the statutory framework and background. Now that the review window has opened for most, if not all, of the affected inmates—and with many now undergoing their second and subsequent reviews—we’re beginning to see appellate case law that both clarifies and raises questions about how the process is meant to work.

In May, the North Carolina Statewide Court Appearance Project Committee released their Final Report with recommendations to promote court appearance and provide alternative responses to missed appearances. The Committee included representatives from the court system, law enforcement, and local criminal justice services agencies. You can learn more about the Committee, here.

The defendant in State v. Meadows, No. COA24-149 (N.C. Ct. App. May 7, 2025), was convicted of murder based on evidence that he and two other men broke into the victim’s home and shot the victim to death. Despite evidence that the defendant was not alone, the trial court refused to instruct on acting in concert. During closing argument, however, the prosecutor told the jury that the State need not prove the defendant “actually fired the shot that actually killed the victim. If he committed one act that contributed to the victim’s death, he is just as guilty as everybody else.” This argument, the Court of Appeals said, was improper. This post examines the opinion in Meadows.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on June 4, 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.

Multiple acts of mass violence plagued the country this week. In Boulder, Colorado on Sunday, a man attacked a group of people demonstrating on behalf of Israeli hostages held by Hamas with a “makeshift flamethrower” and Molotov cocktails, resulting in injuries to fifteen people. The suspect has been charged with federal hate crimes, attempted murder, and more, along with state offenses, according to this report. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, a woman was killed and six people were injured following a shooting on Sunday evening in Boom Island Park. Officers described the scene there as “akin to a war zone.” At least two shooters are suspected of the attack and remain at large. Closer to home, a man was arrested and charged with attempted murder in connection with a Sunday mass shooting at a house party near Hickory, North Carolina. More suspects are being sought. The incident, which involved at least 80 shots being fired, led to the death of one man and injuries to eleven others. In downtown Asheville, NC, a gunfight between two men on Sunday resulted in the death of one of the shooters and several injured people, according to this Citizen Times report. Read on for more criminal law news.