North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

In 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly approved funding to create eight new public defender districts. The eight new districts will cover twenty-two counties. Once they are in place, sixty of North Carolina’s 100 counties will be served by a public defender. Seven of the new districts were fully funded starting January 1, 2024; for the eighth, full funding is effective July 1, 2024. Because new public defender offices need time to hire and train staff, they will not start taking cases right away.

By now, court officials are familiar with the pretrial release laws as amended by the Pretrial Integrity Act. The application of G.S. 15A-533(b) regarding defendants charged with certain high-level felonies has been fairly straightforward. Application of the 48-hour provision, G.S. 15A-533(h), has not been as simple and has given rise to several questions, including what procedures to apply when a criminal process other than an arrest warrant is used.

Under the new law, when a defendant is arrested for a new offense while on pretrial release for a pending proceeding, a judge—rather than a magistrate—must set conditions of release for the new offense within the first 48 hours after arrest. This post addresses the application of this provision with regard to citations, summonses, orders for arrest, and indictments.

Law enforcement officers frequently call on prosecutors for advice. Prosecutors generally see responding to such requests as part of their duties, as the North Carolina Constitution directs that District Attorneys “advise the officers of justice” in their districts. N.C. Const., Art. IV, § 18. But are prosecutors protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity when they give such advice? Or something less? Read on to find out.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the Supreme Court of North Carolina released on March 22, 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.

Prayer for judgment continued or a “PJC” is a common disposition in criminal cases, most frequently for traffic law violations or low-level crimes, where entry of final judgment is delayed indefinitely. We have previously covered when conditions on a PJC convert it to a final judgment, limits on the use of PJCs, sex offender registration and PJCs, whether a PJC can be expunged, collateral consequences of PJCs, and other contexts where questions about PJCs arise. A case from the Court of Appeals last year has generated renewed interest in dispositional PJCs. Dispositional or “true” PJCs typically serve as the final resolution of a case. This is in contrast with PJCs used to continue judgment for a set period of time so the defendant can satisfy some condition or for the court to otherwise remain involved in the case. Today’s post will examine that decision, offer thoughts on how defenders can mitigate the potential risk of a dispositional PJC, and discuss how an unwanted PJC might be avoided altogether.

Today is GiveUNC. According to the GiveUNC website, this is “a day when alumni, friends, faculty [and staff] and other Carolina supporters come together to support the causes they care […]

Video evidence authentication has received a fair amount of treatment on this blog. The topic remains an area of practical significance given the prevalence of video evidence in criminal trials and how common it is for the prosecution’s case to hinge on the admission of video. We are increasingly a video-focused society. Between home security cam, doorbell cam, body-worn cam, in-car cam, pole cam, and even parking lot cam, juries increasingly expect to see video, whether the incident in question occurred outside a home, near a business, or on the roadside.

In this post, I will focus on surveillance video.

On Monday, the Louisiana Senate unanimously passed a bill that would make it a crime to knowingly import, transport, buy, sell, manufacture, or possess a child sex doll. According to proponents of the bill, the dolls resemble children 12 and younger and are used for sexual gratification (for all the Law & Order: SVU fans, this issue was illustrated in an episode of the current season). Depending on the circumstances, intent, and whether or not the doll is imported, a conviction could result in up to two years imprisonment and a fine of up to $20,000. A number of other states have passed laws outlawing child sex dolls since 2019, including Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on March 19, 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 February 2024. Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous summaries of Fourth Circuit cases are available here.