Recent blog posts - 33 of 400

Important Note: In State v. Thomas, No. 248PA24 (N.C. Aug. 14, 2026), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the defendant’s challenge to the warrantless search of his ankle-monitoring data was not preserved for appeal. That opinion is summarized here. Thus, the Court of Appeals’ analysis of the issue discussed below lacks precedential authority.

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.

After a two-week evidentiary hearing last February, and closing arguments delivered in August, Superior Court Judge Wayland Sermons Jr. issued a 120-page order concluding that racism significantly affected the 2009 Johnston County trial of Hasson Bacote that resulted in the imposition of the death penalty. Bacote first challenged his sentence fifteen years ago under the now-repealed Racial Justice Act. In his order, Judge Sermons stated that the evidence showed a “consistent picture of the role race has played in jury selection throughout Johnston County and Prosecutorial District 11, and in the capital cases tried by [the] prosecutor…” After Governor Cooper commuted Bacote’s sentence to life imprisonment last December, it was unclear what would happen with the pending litigation. Judge Sermons evidently concluded that it was appropriate to make a ruling, stating that the voluminous “statistical, cultural, historical, social science, and other evidence produced in the [Bacote] case” would serve as a guide to courts considering the particular facts of future cases. Attorneys for the State said they planned to appeal the ruling.

Read on for more criminal law news.

There are about 10,000 people on post-release supervision (PRS) in North Carolina. Some of them get charged with a new crime. That new charge usually prompts the issuance of a PRS warrant. And when a person is arrested on one of those, it is generally understood that there is no entitlement to bail. So, even if the new charge is relatively minor, the post-release supervisee will often be held in jail until the new charge is resolved. A question that comes up again and again is whether the defendant is entitled to jail credit against the new conviction for the time spent detained on the pending PRS violation.

For most citizens in North Carolina magistrates are the “first face” of the judicial system. They serve the public with professionalism, continually staying updated on the ever-evolving civil and criminal […]