Recent Blog Posts Page 29 on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

The top story this week is the arrest on Monday of Luigi Mangione, 26, accused of fatally shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on December 4. Multiple news outlets, including ABC, BBC and CBS, have reported on the investigation, noting that Mangione’s fingerprints matched prints found near the crime scene, that the gun Mangione was carrying when arrested matched shell casings from the crime scene, and that handwritten pages he possessed appear to claim responsibility for the shooting. Read on for more criminal law news.

Yesterday, the General Assembly overrode Governor Cooper’s veto to enact S.L. 2024-57 (S 382). The legislation, which was focused in part on disaster recovery following Hurricane Helene, impacts the court system in several notable ways:

• It appropriates $8.2 million to the Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS) to ensure timely payments to private assigned counsel representing indigent defendants (Section 2D.3);
• It creates two new special superior court judgeships to be filled by legislative appointment (Section 2D.4(a));
• It eliminates, as of January 1, 2029, two superior court districts, one in Wake County and one in Forsyth County (Section 2D.5);
• It modifies the process for filling vacancies on the appellate courts (Section 3C.1);
• It abolishes the Courts Commission (Section 3C.2);
• It provides for appointment of senior resident superior court judges by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court (Section 3C.3); and
• It authorizes the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to employ or retain counsel to represent judicial branch officers and employees (Section 3D.2).

The defendant presented competent evidence tending to show that he was acting in self-defense when he shot Raquan Neal, the Court of Appeals recently said in State v. Myers, No. COA24-435 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2024), and the trial court’s failure to instruct on self-defense was error. Reciting both the common law and the statutory test for self-defense, the opinion in Myers seems to represent a straightforward application of settled law – except for one thing. The defendant “testified he was not trying to kill Neal.” Myers, Slip Op. 3. Under the common law, a defendant was not privileged to use deadly force unless he believed at the time that it was necessary to kill his assailant. Prior cases found no error in the trial court’s denying an instruction on self-defense when the defendant thus disavowed the requisite intent. This post considers the opinion in Myers.

According to this story, the CEO of United Health Care, Brian Thompson, was walking through Manhattan on his way to conference when a masked gunman fired multiple shots from a 9 mm handgun, striking Mr. Thompson from behind and killing him. The suspect fled the scene and remains at large at the time of this writing. Authorities believe the shooter was specifically targeting Thompson, a belief reinforced by the discovery that shell casings at the scene were inscribed with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.” Police were able to obtain surveillance footage showing an image of the suspect from a local hostel. Thompson’s wife reported that he had received threats recently, but did not offer specifics. In addition to his wife, Thompson leaves behind two sons. Read on more for more criminal law news.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on December 3, 2024. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.

As regular readers know, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), this past June. The decision undercut the reasoning used by North Carolina courts to justify the practice of permitting substitute analysts to offer an independent opinion about the forensic report of another, nontestifying analyst (as discussed here and here). Until this week, no North Carolina court had applied Smith. The wait is now over. In State v. Clark, NCCOA-1133, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Dec. 3, 2024), the Court of Appeals delved into the impact of Smith on North Carolina law, ultimately granting the defendant a new trial for a Confrontation Clause violation. This post discusses the Clark decision and its implications for the future of substitute analysts in the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) that any contested fact that increases the defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. Shortly thereafter,  the General Assembly amended G.S. 20-179 to require judges in superior court cases to submit contested aggravating factors during impaired driving sentencing to the jury. Practically, this means that after a person is found guilty of impaired driving, if they are contesting properly alleged aggravating factors, there must be a sentencing hearing before the jury to determine any aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. The North Carolina Supreme Court considered in State v. King, ___ N.C. ___, 906 S.E.2d 808 (2024) what happens if a judge finds contested aggravating factors without submitting them to the jury.

The Associated Press reports here that “President Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, sparing the younger Biden a possible prison sentence for federal felony gun and tax convictions and reversing his past promises not to use the extraordinary powers of the presidency for the benefit of his family.” This post discusses President Biden’s decision.

[Editor’s note: The legislative summaries linked in this post were updated on December 12, 2024, to reflect legislation enacted after this post first appeared.] Looking for some interesting topics to discuss over Thanksgiving dinner? The criminal summaries for this legislative session are now available and can be accessed here.

When Session Law (S.L.) 2024-17 takes effect next Sunday, December 1, cases in which a Class A – E felony offense is alleged to have been committed at age 16 or 17 will originate under criminal jurisdiction. This means that the juveniles involved in these cases will be processed as defendants in criminal proceedings and not under the procedure for initiating a juvenile delinquency proceeding. At first blush, it may seem that this change will bring local procedure back to what it was before most offenses committed at ages 16 and 17 were brought under original juvenile jurisdiction (with the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act in 2019). However, since 2019, both federal and state law changed in ways that shifted the landscape of arrest processing and confinement of minors. This blog explores these changes and their impact on implementation of S.L. 2024-17.