Recent blog posts

Former Durham Bull Wander Franco was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor in the Dominican Republic this week. This ESPN story reports that he received a suspended sentence, while “[t]he mother of the [14 year old] victim . . . was convicted of sexually trafficking her daughter and sentenced to 10 years in prison after prosecutors proved she sought financial gains from Franco and laundered money.” Franco was a star for the Bulls and quickly moved up to the major league level. He had just signed an 11-year, $182 million contract with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays when he was arrested. Whether he will be able to resume his baseball career is not clear. He may have difficulty obtaining a visa to enter the United States, and Major League Baseball may take action against him as well. Additionally, he is still facing charges in his home country connected to the alleged unlawful possession of a firearm. Keep reading for more news.

Character evidence is one of the most challenging areas of evidence law to navigate, as Jessie Smith observes here. Jessie’s blog features a useful chart to apply Rules 404 and 405 and also links to the bench book chapter.

I find it helpful to see these rules in action with concrete examples. A common context in which the character evidence rules come into play in criminal cases is self-defense cases. This post discusses several common questions that arise, as well as some adjacent issues.

Let’s use a simple hypothetical:

The defendant is charged with shooting the victim outside of a bar after an argument about whether the victim approached the defendant’s girlfriend. The defendant claims that the victim came at him first with a knife.

The questions below deal with what the defendant can elicit about the victim and what the State can elicit about the defendant. As we work through the examples, remember that Rule 404 addresses when character evidence is admissible or inadmissible, and Rule 405 addresses the method of proof for the character evidence (reputation/opinion evidence or specific instances of conduct).

Rules 404 and 405 are included at the end of the post for reference.

Dispositional orders in delinquency cases must contain “appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.” G.S. 7B-2512(a). What constitutes appropriate findings of fact is a question that North Carolina appellate courts have repeatedly addressed. This blog explains the requirement for findings in delinquency dispositional orders and provides examples of findings that the North Carolina Court of Appeals has found to be sufficient.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on June 18, 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.

Two immigration enforcement bills have passed at the General Assembly and are now on Governor Josh Stein’s desk. The deadline for his signature or veto is today.

The first bill, SB 153, contains several provisions, one of which would require state law enforcement agencies such as the State Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety to contact ICE if they have someone in custody who is not a legal resident or U.S. citizen. State law enforcement officers would be trained to act as immigration officers pursuant to the 287(g) program.

The second bill, HB 318, makes updates to the previously passed HB 10. Existing law, discussed by Brittany here, requires county jails to inquire into the immigration status of individuals charged with certain felonies and high-level misdemeanors and contact ICE if the jail is unable to verify that an individual is a legal resident. The new law would expand the list of crimes for which jails would have to check status. In addition, existing law mandates that a 48-hour hold be imposed upon receipt of an ICE detainer.  The updated law would require that the 48-hour hold be imposed once the individual would otherwise be released, rather than upon receipt of the detainer.

Read on for more criminal law news.

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.