North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

Most readers of this blog are familiar with Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina. For those who are not, it is a treatise on search and seizure law. It covers stops, arrests, warrantless searches, search warrants, and much more. The most recent (sixth) edition was published in 2021 and was authored by long-time School of Government faculty member Robert L. Farb and research attorney Christopher Tyner. However, the law is never static, and the intervening years have seen major developments concerning issues such as digital searches, strip searches, the recording of interrogations, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, and more. I’ve updated the treatise, and this post details how to access the new content.

In this brief blog I want to announce updated editions of two much lengthier resources. One is my Guide to Relief from a Criminal Conviction, now updated to include legislation […]

When the court issues an order of disposition committing a juvenile to a youth development center (YDC), that commitment is almost always required to be for an indefinite period of time that lasts at least six months. G.S.7B-2513(a). The court cannot order an end date for these commitments. However, the court is required to determine the maximum period the juvenile may remain committed before an extension would have to be filed or the juvenile must be released, and to notify the juvenile of that determination at the time disposition is ordered. G.S.7B-2513(a4). How should this maximum period of commitment be calculated? And is every commitment eligible for an extension? This post addresses these questions.

Today I begin a series of blog posts discussing the law around confidential informants, motions to reveal identity, and discovery. Technological developments have made it more common for law enforcement to document the activity of a confidential informant (“CI”) through video and audio recording. This change raises challenging legal questions, such as whether the identity of the confidential informant must be revealed to the defense and what must be turned over in discovery. Today’s post discusses the landmark case of Roviaro v. U.S. and introduces the basic issues, focusing on the factors that weigh toward or against the disclosure of the CI’s identity to the defense. Future posts will discuss the relevant statutes, key state cases, and federal courts’ analysis of these questions, along with procedural and strategic considerations.

The first criminal trial of a former U.S. president began this week in Manhattan. Donald Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, based on allegations that he dishonestly classified payments to porn actor Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal as legal expenses, when they were in fact hush-money payments to hide affairs. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in New York, but the crime is elevated to a felony when done with intent to conceal a second crime. District Attorney Alvin Bragg has stated that the evidence will show that Trump falsified the records with the intent to conceal campaign finance and tax crimes. On Monday, the proceedings began with pre-trial evidentiary arguments, and presiding Judge Juan Merchan excluded certain pieces of evidence as too prejudicial. For example, prosecutors will not be permitted to play the audio recording of the “Access Hollywood” tape to the jury, but they will be permitted to introduce the campaign emails discussing the tape. Jury selection is well underway. 50 of the original 96 prospective jurors were excused immediately after stating they could not be fair and impartial. The lawyers have scrutinized jurors’ prior social media posts to uncover potential biases as they decide whom to strike. As of today, 12 jurors and one alternate have been selected, with five more alternates to be picked. Read on for more criminal law news.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on April 16, 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 a published criminal law released by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during March 2024. Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous summaries of Fourth Circuit cases are available here.

A common point of confusion among law enforcement and the public is about the use of unlabeled pill bottles. Is it legal to possess prescription medicine in a container other than the original bottle with the prescription affixed? Does discovering an unlabeled pill bottle justify seizing and searching it to see if it contains contraband? Can a pill bottle be removed from a pocket during a frisk based on plain feel? Does it provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search or arrest a suspect? A case decided by the Court of Appeals earlier this month, State v. Jackson, No. COA23-727; ___ N.C. App.  ____; ___ S.E.2d ___ (Mar. 19, 2024), sheds some light on these questions. Read on for the details.

The right to appeal an order in a delinquency matter is established in G.S. 7B-2602 (Right to appeal) and G.S. 7B-2603 (Right to appeal transfer decision). These statutes do not identify every order that is entered in a delinquency action. Instead, there is a right to appeal after entry of specified final orders and any order transferring jurisdiction to superior court for trial as an adult. This post explains when there is a statutory right to appeal an order in a delinquency matter, who has the right to appeal, and restrictions on juvenile court jurisdiction while an appeal is pending.

Nationally, the biggest criminal law story this week was the sentencing of James and Jennifer Crumbley. They’re the parents of Ethan Crumbley, who was a student at Oxford High School in Michigan in 2021 when he murdered four classmates and injured seven other people in a mass shooting. James and Jennifer Crumbley were each convicted, in separate trials, of four counts of involuntary manslaughter as a result of their son’s acts. The prosecution contended that they ignored a host of warning signs about Ethan’s mental state and ultimately enabled the shooting by purchasing him a handgun. This week, they were sentenced at a joint sentencing hearing to 10 to 15 years in prison. The Associated Press has the story here. Read on for more news.