Recent Blog Posts Page 25 on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

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. 

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.

We have covered the extensive post-conviction and appellate proceedings of Richard Glossip’s death sentence many times before on the blog (most recently here). Glossip has been on death row in Oklahoma since his 1998 conviction for allegedly orchestrating the brutal killing of a hotel owner. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Glossip a new trial after finding that the prosecution knowingly failed to correct false and misleading testimony at trial. Specifically, the prosecution knew its star witness, Sneed, was lying when he denied having seen a psychiatrist and denied having been prescribed lithium, a medicine typically used to treat severe mental illnesses. Sneed admitted to killing the victim and agreed to testify against Glossip in exchange the State taking the death penalty off the table for Sneed’s role in the crime. According to the 5-3 majority: “Correcting Sneed’s lie would have undermined his credibility and revealed his willingness to lie under oath. . . Hence, there was a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed’s testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury.” Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, while Justice Barrett concurred and would have sent the case back to the Oklahoma appellate court (Justice Gorsuch recused himself from the case). If tried again, it would be Glossip’s third capital trial related to the killing. SCOTUSblog has the story here, or you can read the case for yourself here. Read on for more criminal law news.

Last September, the Court of Appeals decided State v. Thomas, No. COA23-210, __ N.C. App. __ (2024), a case involving law enforcement’s retrieval of ankle monitor location data gathered while the defendant was on post-release supervision.

This is the first North Carolina appellate case to address whether it is constitutional for law enforcement to retrieve ankle monitor data without a warrant. This post will discuss the reasoning in Thomas and its implications for related questions.

Beginning with offenses committed on or after January 1, 2025, new laws are in effect regarding the standard and procedures for addressing juvenile capacity to proceed. The new statutes can be found in G.S. 7B-2401-2401.5. You can find blogs about the details of the new standard and procedures here and here. This major revision to the law of juvenile capacity to proceed required new court forms and a new process for credentialing juvenile forensic evaluators. This post details those new structures.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on February 19, 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.

Seven men are charged with stealing millions from the homes of six professional athletes across the country, as reported by NPR. Court documents do not identify the victims by name, but the details are consistent with reported burglaries at the homes of Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs and Joe Burrow of the Cincinnati Bengals. CNN adds that the suspects were apprehended after taking a selfie discovered by the FBI. Read on for more criminal law news.

Questions sometimes arise in criminal cases about whether a new judge may pick up duties initially undertaken by another judge who is no longer available.  Consider the following scenarios.

1. Trial begins with Judge A presiding. Judge A falls ill on day 3 of trial. May Judge B substitute as the presiding judge?
2. Judge A presided over a suppression hearing in December 2024, just before her term expired at the end of the year. Judge A announced her ruling in open court and directed the prevailing party to prepare an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. Judge A did not sign the order before her term expired. May Judge B enter an order containing findings of fact and memorializing Judge A’s ruling?
3. Judge A also presided over a probation violation hearing in December 2024. She determined that the defendant violated the terms of his probation, and she modified the judgment, announcing her ruling in court. She did not sign the judgment before her term expired. May Judge B sign the judgment memorializing Judge A’s decision?

The answers to the questions posed above are, respectively (1) yes, (2) no, and (3) maybe. Keep reading to learn why.

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

Some time ago, I received an email from a researcher asking whether a minor may consent to the search of his or her cell phone. The question made me realize how little I knew about children’s authority to consent to searches more generally. So I cracked some law books, and wrote this post as a primer for anyone who may be as uninformed as I was.