Recent Blog Posts Page 27 on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

Tuesday night, Pam Bondi was confirmed by the United States Senate as the Attorney General of the United States. Bondi previously served as Attorney General of Florida. The Senate voted 54 – 46, with all Republicans plus John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voting in favor of confirmation, and all other Democrats voting against. NPR reports here that Bondi immediately issued 14 memoranda that, among other things, lift the federal moratorium on executions; establish a task force on antisemitism and justice for the victims of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel; and form a working group regarding the weaponization of federal agencies for political ends. Keep reading for more news.

This post summarizes a criminal law decision published by the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 21, 2025.

In every case where a person is charged with felony speeding to elude arrest pursuant to G.S. 20-141.5(b) or (b1), the motor vehicle driven is subject to seizure and forfeiture. This is also true in DWI cases where, at the date of offense, the defendant’s driver’s license was revoked for an impaired driving revocation or the defendant did not have a valid license nor insurance. When in district court, these cases have expedited calendaring requirements (discussed here). This is in part to preserve the vehicle’s value while the case is pending. Upon seizure, the vehicle is usually first towed to a local storage facility, then transferred to the facilities of a state contractor within a few days. There are fees for towing, as well as accruing fees for storage. Whether the motor vehicle is released to its owner, a lienholder, or forfeited to the county board of education, these towing and storage fees must be paid. Often, these fees are paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the vehicle. While expediting the underlying case towards resolution is one way to minimize these fees, another is release of the vehicle before case disposition. This post addresses the circumstances under which a vehicle may be fully released pretrial and does not have to be brought back for a later forfeiture hearing.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the Supreme Court of North Carolina released on January 31, 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.

I’ve enjoyed quite a few books by John Grisham. I liked some of his early fiction a great deal. His more recent novels have been hit or miss for me. This Christmas, I received a copy of Framed, a new work of nonfiction he wrote in collaboration with Jim McCloskey, the founder of a nonprofit called Centurion Ministries that works to exonerate the wrongfully convicted. The book has ten chapters. Each tells the story of a wrongful conviction. I found the book interesting and also somewhat unsatisfying, for reasons I explain below.

The lead story this week is the sentencing of former U.S. senator Bob Menendez on Wednesday to 11 years in prison, per this report from the Washington Post. Menendez, 71, a longtime New Jersey lawmaker, was convicted last year in federal court of bribery and extortion, among other charges. He is the first public official in the United States to be convicted of acting as a foreign agent. Menendez has given notice of appeal. Read on for more criminal law news.

The castle doctrine statute, G.S. 14-51.2, provides that it is presumptively reasonable for the lawful occupant of a home or motor vehicle to respond to an intruder with deadly force. State v. Phillips, 386 N.C. 513, 527 (2024). Two recent decisions examine the scope of this protection. In State v. Carwile, No. COA23-885 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2024), the Court of Appeals held that the castle doctrine did not apply when the defendant was outside his home. By contrast, in State v. Williams, COA24-50 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2024), the Court of Appeals held the castle doctrine did apply though the defendant was outside of his car. This post seeks to harmonize Carwile and Williams.

Does the law that makes personally identifiable arrest information a public record apply to the arrest of a person who is 16-or 17-years-old and charged with a Class A – E felony? This is the most common question I have received since the law of juvenile jurisdiction changed on December 1, 2024. Beginning with offenses committed on that date, Class A – E felonies committed at ages 16 and 17 fall under original criminal jurisdiction. G.S. 7B-1501(7)b.2. That means that these cases are now criminal cases from their inception. At the same time, the youth involved fall under the definition of juvenile in the Juvenile Code. G.S. 7B-1501(17). This leaves many people wondering which law applies—the public records law about law enforcement arrest records or the Juvenile Code provisions about the confidential nature of law enforcement records and files concerning juveniles?

I recently had the opportunity to travel to Spain, where I networked with academic colleagues, gave a talk about American policing, and did some research. One thing I wanted to learn more about was how law enforcement officers in Spain are selected and trained. I had read this article, and similar pieces, arguing that police training in Europe is very different from – and superior to – American police training. I wanted to assess that for myself. I was surprised by some of things I learned, and I thought I would share them in this post.

As one of his first acts as in office, President Trump issued sweeping pardons and commutations for the people convicted of crimes stemming from their involvement in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Most of the defendants received full and unconditional pardons, while fourteen people convicted of seditious conspiracy received commutations of their sentences, according to this report by the AP. The President has also directed the U.S. Attorney General to dismiss the remaining pending prosecutions of January 6th defendants (around 450 cases). This sweeping grant of relief serves as a rejection by the executive branch of the outcomes of what was “the largest investigation in Justice Department history,” according to the story. Supporters of the move praised the President’s actions as undoing what they consider politically motivated prosecutions, while detractors have categorized the relief as a blow to the justice system, pointing to the hundreds of defendants duly convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers and other serious crimes. At least one defendant convicted of a misdemeanor relating to January 6th is attempting to refuse her pardon, although the legal support for such a move is unclear, according to this story. Additionally, President Trump issued a full pardon to Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, an online marketplace for drugs and other contraband. Ulbricht was convicted of various drug, conspiracy, and computer offenses in 2015 and was sentenced to life without parole. Read on for more criminal law news.