Recent blog posts - 192 of 398

America is in the midst of an opioid epidemic, and North Carolina is no exception. The CDC reports that “[s]ince 1999, the number of overdose deaths involving opioids . . . quadrupled. From 2000 to 2015, more than half a million people died from drug overdoses.” A new report based on health insurance data put four North Carolina cities among the 25 worst in the nation for opioid abuse. What is our state government doing about this?

Chief Justice Mark Martin delivered the 2017 State of the Judiciary Address at the North Carolina Bar Association’s annual meeting over the weekend.  A video of the address is available on YouTube.  In his remarks, Chief Justice Martin called on the General Assembly to let North Carolinians vote on whether to change the state constitution so that judges are selected using a merit-selection system.  The Asheville Citizen-Times has a report about the proposal here.  Keep reading for more news.

[Editor’s note: This post originally ran last week on the School’s civil law blog, On the Civil Side. Because it concerns prosecutors’ roles in abuse, neglect, and dependency cases, it is cross-posted here.]

Like every other state, North Carolina has a mandated reporting law for child abuse and neglect. North Carolina’s law requires any person or institution with cause to suspect a child is abused, neglected, or dependent by a parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker to make a report to the county child welfare department (in most counties, DSS) where the child resides or is found. G.S. 7B-301. What is in a report? Are there protections for the reporter? What are the rights of the reporter? If DSS decides not to initiate a court action, can the reporter challenge that decision?

Our colleague Bob Farb announced his retirement on the blog yesterday. He worked for the School of Government for 41 years, interacted with every group of public officials imaginable, and was highly productive and widely respected. This post remembers Bob’s career.

After 41 years with the School of Government (formerly, the Institute of Government), I will retire on June 30. It has been my privilege to serve those who work in […]

The Supreme Court just decided Turner v. United States, rejecting the Brady claims of several defendants convicted of a brutal and highly publicized murder in Washington, D.C. Although the Court ruled in the prosecution’s favor, it also encouraged prosecutors to provide defendants with all evidence that may be helpful to the defense, even if that evidence does not cast material doubt on the prosecution’s case.

The General Assembly passed a $23 billion state budget bill this week that includes provisions likely of interest to blog readers.  In what would be a significant change to the criminal justice system, the proposed budget raises the age of juvenile court jurisdiction such that most cases against 16- and 17-year-olds will be handled in the juvenile system, rather than the adult system, beginning in December 2019.  The News Roundup previously noted that the proposal to raise the age had broad support from law makers and criminal justice system stakeholders.  A more controversial provision of the bill cuts roughly $10 million from the administrative and legal services budget of the Department of Justice.  Keep reading for more news.

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down G.S. 14-202.5, North Carolina’s ban on sex offenders accessing commercial social networking websites. The law violates the First Amendment.

An ancient maxim of the law is ignorantia juris non excusat, or ignorance of the law does not excuse. Put another way, it is presumed that the public knows the laws, and a defense of ignorance is typically not allowed. This principle is at the heart of the recent decision by the state supreme court in State v. Miller, ___ N.C. ___, (June 9, 2017).

Over the weekend, the judge presiding over Bill Cosby’s sexual assault trial declared a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. I hadn’t followed the case very closely and my knee-jerk reaction was, “wait, fifty women have accused this guy of sexual assault and he didn’t get convicted?” As I thought more about it, I began to wonder how many accusers — other than Andrea Constand, the alleged victim in the case — were allowed to testify against Cosby. It turns out that it was only one.