This post summarizes published criminal law and related cases released by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during February 2025. Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous summaries of Fourth Circuit cases are available here.
When Can the Police Seize a Cell Phone Incident to Arrest, and How Long Can They Keep It?
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), holds that the contents of a cell phone may not be searched incident to arrest, but allows for the possibility that the phone itself may be seized incident to arrest. This post addresses when such a seizure is permissible and how long it may last.
News Roundup
The news story that captured my attention this week is not exactly, or not entirely, a criminal law story. Mahmoud Khalil, who helped lead pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, was arrested this week by ICE agents at the university-owned apartment where he lived. (Khalil apparently was a graduate student at the university until December.) Khalil is a lawful permanent resident of the United States – that is, a green card holder – but the agents indicated that his status would be revoked as a result of what the Trump administration views as his anti-Semitic advocacy. He remains in custody but has lawyered up, raising interesting questions about the government’s ability to revoke legal permanent residency based on speech. A federal judge has ordered that he not be deported pending further proceedings. The AP has more here and here. Keep reading for more news.
The End of the Super-Contingent Sentence
Under G.S. 15A-1346(b), a sentencing court has the authority to order a probationary sentence to run consecutively to an undischarged term of imprisonment. Probation officers refer to that as a “contingent” sentence, because for them, it is—the start of the probation is contingent on the person’s release from prison. A contingent probationary sentence can be helpful when, for example, a defendant owes a lot of restitution, and the court wants to make sure there’s plenty of time on probation remaining after the defendant finishes any active sentences. To be clear, this is not a matter of whether the suspended term of imprisonment, if revoked, will run concurrently with or consecutively to some other term of imprisonment. This is about when the period of probation itself begins. A recent Court of Appeals decision changes things.
When is Double Jeopardy a Rule of Evidence?
The defendant in State v. Greenfield, No. COA23-597 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2025), argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence and allowing argument about an attempted armed robbery charge for which he had previously been acquitted. The Court of Appeals posited that evidence is inadmissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause only when it falls within the scope of the collateral estoppel doctrine, which precludes relitigation of an issue of fact previously determined by a final judgment. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err by failing to intervene in the closing argument here, but its formulation of the rule begs the question: under what circumstances will double jeopardy require the exclusion of evidence? This post attempts to answer that question.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (March 5, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on March 5, 2025. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
News Roundup
A man is scheduled to be executed by firing squad this evening, which would be the first firing squad execution in the United States in the last 15 years. On Wednesday, Brad Sigmon’s final appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court was denied. In South Carolina, death row inmates may choose between firing squad, lethal injection, and electrocution. Sigmon said he felt forced to choose execution by firing squad over lethal injection because of a lack of information about the drugs used and the “fear of a tortuous death.” He also said he didn’t choose electrocution because he didn’t want to suffer “by being cooked alive.” Sigmon’s attorneys attempted to delay the execution to get a fuller hearing in court to learn more information about the drugs used in lethal injection, but their request was denied. Sigmon plans to ask Governor Henry McMaster for his sentence to be commuted, although no South Carolina governor has granted clemency since the death penalty restarted in 1976. Read on for more criminal law news.
State v. Fearns Finds Second Judge Lacked Authority to Enter Order When Hearing Was Held by First Judge
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the circumstances in which one judge may pick up case-related duties that another judge is unable to complete. Yesterday, the court of appeals decided a case in this area, determining in State v. Fearns, COA23-650, ___ N.C. App. ___ (2025), that a judge lacked authority to enter an order denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss when the hearing on that motion was held by another judge. This post will discuss Fearns.
Motor Vehicle Seizures: Temporary Release Pending Trial
In previous posts, I’ve addressed the expedited scheduling requirements and opportunities for permanent release of motor vehicles seized pursuant to G.S. 20-28.3. Today, I’ll address the ways a motor vehicle may be released temporarily pending trial or final disposition of the underlying offense. Generally speaking, this temporary release permits a motor vehicle owner to obtain temporary possession of the vehicle conditioned on meeting certain prerequisites and agreeing to return the motor vehicle on the day of the forfeiture hearing. Read on for more.
Machine-Generated Data, Lab Tests, and the Confrontation Clause
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the use of testimonial hearsay statements by an unavailable witness at a criminal trial, as does its state counterpart in Article I, Sec. 23 of the North Carolina Constitution. A hearsay statement is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth. A statement is testimonial if the primary purpose of the statement was to establish past facts for use at a later prosecution. Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237, 245 (2015). The Confrontation Clause does not protect against the admission of nontestimonial statements (although hearsay statements still must meet an exception or exemption). In a recent decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court analyzed a challenge to the admission of the defendant’s phone records offered by the State at trial. Overruling the Court of Appeals on the point, the North Carolina Supreme Court found that the phone records were nontestimonial as purely machine-generated data.” The case is a good reminder of the distinctions between testimonial and nontestimonial statements and may have implications for future confrontation issues. Read on for the details.