Recent Blog Posts Page 30 on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

On New Year’s Eve, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion in No Limit Games, LLC v. Sheriff of Robeson County, __ N.C. App. __, __ S.E.2d __, 2024 WL 5250431 (Dec. 31, 2024). The case represents the latest development in the long-running battle over electronic sweepstakes games in North Carolina. This post provides a brief history of the issue, summarizes the recent opinion, and discusses the evolving sweepstakes industry and legal efforts to address it.

Around this time of year, many Americans begin to think about Santa. Will he visit? What will he bring? Will Rudolph be guiding his sleigh? As children normally picture him, Santa is an elderly gentleman, dressed in a distinctive red-and-white outfit. He may seem kindly and generous. But upon closer reflection, his activities appear far less benign. This post analyzes his conduct under the criminal law.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on December 17, 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.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the Supreme Court of North Carolina released on December 13, 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.

This post summarizes published criminal law and related cases released by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during November 2024. Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous summaries of Fourth Circuit cases are available here.

Following the Senate, the North Carolina House of Representatives voted to override Governor Cooper’s veto on Session Law 2024-57 (Senate Bill 382) last week. The legislation effects sweeping change to the executive and judicial branches and elections law. It marks the third round of public support for Hurricane Helene disaster relief. Subpart II-D (“Justice and Public Safety”) of the bill also modifies an affirmative defense available to individuals charged with violating certain local ordinances. This post explains the statutory amendment and its potential impacts.

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.