A defendant who claims self-defense is generally permitted to offer evidence of the victim’s prior violent conduct if known to the defendant at the time defensive force was used. Such evidence is relevant to the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief in the need to use force. In State v. Ervin, No. COA24-650 (N.C. Ct. App. April 2, 2025), the trial court excluded as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence offered by the defendant to show his state of mind at the time he killed his girlfriend’s brother, namely, evidence that the victim was in a gang. The Court of Appeals found no error, stating that evidence the defendant feared for his life because the victim was in a gang “does little to support his theory of self-defense.” This post examines the opinion in Ervin.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (May 7, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on May 7, 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
The Alabama Governor signed legislation on Tuesday, establishing a new shark alert system that warns beachgoers when a shark has bitten someone in the vicinity. The system will issue a public notice to cellphones along the Alabama coast when there’s been a shark attack nearby. The law, named the “Lulu Gribbin Shark Alert System Act,” was inspired by a teenager who was one of three people bitten by a shark during a string of attacks last year. She lost her left hand and a portion of her right leg in the attack.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources will create rules for the new alert system. Read on for more news.
Double-Secret Post-Release Supervision
Post-release supervision has been mandatory for all felonies since 2011. But rarely if ever does anyone mention it when advising a defendant about a waiver of counsel or the consequences of a guilty plea. It’s not clearly statutorily required to do so. But the PRS is real, especially for crimes that require registration as a sex offender, where the term of supervised release is five years. G.S. 15A-1368.2(c). Is it a problem that it doesn’t get mentioned? Yes, according to a recent case from the Court of Appeals.
When is Driving While License Revoked a Grossly Aggravating Factor?
There are six sentencing levels for Driving While Impaired (DWI) convictions. A defendant is only exposed to the three most severe levels (A1, 1, and 2) if a judge or jury finds the existence of one or more “grossly aggravating factors” beyond a reasonable doubt. These factors are listed in G.S. 20-179(c). One of them is “[d]riving by the defendant at the time of the offense while the defendant’s driver’s license was revoked pursuant to G.S. 20‑28(a1).” Rather than applying to all revocations, G.S. 20-28(a1) applies when person’s license is revoked for an “impaired driving revocation.” At first glance, it appears any time a person is convicted of DWI, if their license was revoked for an impaired driving revocation, this grossly aggravating factor would apply and elevate their sentencing exposure—but that may not be the case. Read on for more.
The Use of Minors as Confidential Informants
Serving as a confidential informant can be dangerous, whether the informant is an adult or underage. As to minors working as informants, the International Association of Chiefs of Police recounts a cautionary tale:
In 1998, police in California arrested [17-year-old Chad] MacDonald on drug charges. He agreed to act as a CI, wearing a recording device during at least one drug buy and providing police with information about local drug trafficking. A short time later, he was found dead in an alley, apparently tortured and strangled, and his girlfriend was found raped and shot to death in a canyon. MacDonald’s death was believed to have been the result of his association with law enforcement as a CI.
Bearing these risks in mind, is it lawful for police to use minors as confidential informants? Is it a good idea? This post explores the topic.
News Roundup
The top national story this week is that the Supreme Court just heard oral argument in a case involving a shocking error by law enforcement. In 2017, an FBI SWAT team smashed its way into an Atlanta home and discharged a flashbang grenade in a pre-dawn raid. I believe the technical term for what happened is that they scared the bejeezus out of the couple and young child who were sleeping there . . . only to find out that they had entered the wrong residence. The warrant authorizing the intrusion was for 3741 Landau Lane, but they had entered 3756 Denville Trace. The residents sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government contended that something called the “discretionary function exception” barred recovery, and lower courts ruled for the government. The Supreme Court granted review and heard arguments this week. According to SCOTUSblog, the Court “was sympathetic” to the residents but the outcome of the case remains unclear. Read on for more news.
Procedures for Criminal Bench Trials in Superior Court
The North Carolina Constitution historically mandated trial by jury in all criminal cases in superior court. See N.C. Const. Art. I, Section 24 (2014) (“No person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury in open court. The General Assembly may, however, provide for other means of trial for misdemeanors, with the right of appeal for trial de novo.”); State v. Hudson, 280 N.C. 74, 79 (1971) (“In this State, the only exception to the rule that ‘nothing can be a conviction but the verdict of a jury’ . . . is the constitutional authority granted the General Assembly to provide for the Initial trial of misdemeanors in inferior courts without a jury, with trial De novo by a jury upon appeal. . . . It is equally rudimentary that a trial by jury in a criminal action cannot be waived by the accused in the Superior Court as long as his plea remains ‘not guilty.’”); State v. Bunch, 196 N.C. App. 438, 440 (2009), aff’d, 363 N.C. 841 (2010) (“Unlike the right to a jury trial established by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right to a jury trial pursuant to Article I, Section 24, cannot be waived.”); see also State v. Holt, 90 N.C. 749, 750–51 (1884) (“The constitution (Art. I, §13) provides that “no person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court. The legislature may, however, provide other means of trial for petty misdemeanors with the right of appeal.’”). Thus, a defendant who wished to proceed to trial in superior court had to do so before a jury. There was no option for a criminal trial in superior court in which the judge served as the finder of fact – a procedure known as a bench trial. The state constitution was, however, amended effective December 1, 2014 (for criminal offenses arraigned in superior court on or after that date) to allow a defendant in a noncapital case to waive the right to a jury trial with the consent of the trial judge. S.L. 2013-300.
As a result, Article I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution currently provides:
No person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury in open court, except that a person accused of any criminal offense for which the State is not seeking a sentence of death in superior court may, in writing or on the record in the court and with the consent of the trial judge, waive jury trial, subject to procedures prescribed by the General Assembly. The General Assembly may, however, provide for other means of trial for misdemeanors, with the right of appeal for trial de novo.
G.S. 15A-1201 prescribes the procedures for waiving jury trial in superior court in favor of a bench trial. G.S. 15A-1201(b) provides that when a defendant — with the consent of the trial judge — waives the right to trial by jury, the whole matter of law and fact “shall be heard and judgment given by the court.” Those determinations include aggravating factors in impaired driving cases under G.S. 20-179 and aggravating factors in structured sentencing cases under G.S. 15A-1340.16.
So how is it done?
May an Undercover Officer Engage in Sexual Activity with a Suspected Prostitute?
I read a news article some time ago about officers who investigate suspected prostitutes by going undercover and purchasing their services. The article noted that this practice is controversial. Some agencies apparently don’t allow it, deeming it unnecessary and dehumanizing; others allow brief sexual contact but then require the officer to desist; and still others allow officers to engage in extended sexual contact. Similar issues arise when officers use informants to procure sexual services. A premise of the article was that there is no legal impediment to such practices, but the actual legal landscape is more mixed. This post provides more nuance.
News Roundup
The top story this week is that country music star Jelly Roll has been recommended for a pardon by a Tennessee parole board. NBC has the story, as well as ABC and the AP. The singer, whose legal name is Jason B. Deford, 40, was convicted in 2008 of robbery and drug possession. He was released in 2016 and struggled to succeed as a musician before earning four Grammy Award nominations in February. Davidson County, TN, Sheriff Daron Hall asked Governor Bill Lee to pardon Jelly Roll last year, and the parole board’s vote on Tuesday was part of that mission. The matter is now pending before the governor. Read on for more criminal law news.