North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

Yesterday, former President Trump turned himself in at the Fulton County jail in Atlanta to be booked on criminal charges related to his alleged efforts to interfere with and overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. President Trump was in and out of the jail in 20 minutes, during which time he had a mug shot taken. He posted the mug shot on X (formerly Twitter), returning to the platform for the first time in two years. He characterized the prosecutor who brought the charges as a “Radical Left, Lowlife District Attorney.” NBC News has the basics here. I’ll have some more information about some interesting legal issues in the case on Monday. For now, keep reading for more news.

As a general rule, most defendants are entitled to have conditions of pretrial release set without unnecessary delay, and this typically happens at the initial appearance before a magistrate. G.S. 15A-511; -534. There is a carve out for capital defendants—only a judge can set conditions in a capital case and conditions are in the judge’s discretion. G.S. 15A-533(c). The statute contains other exceptions to the general rule, such as the 48-hour hold rule for domestic violence cases, providing that only a judge can set conditions within the first 48 hours of arrest. G.S. 15A-534.1(a). North Carolina’s new Pretrial Integrity Act, effective October 1, 2023, and applying to offenses committed on or after that date, creates significant additional exceptions to the general rule.

One of the more common questions I receive about the transfer of a case from juvenile jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the superior court for trial as an adult is whether transfer can be ordered based on consent of the juvenile. The issue seems to cross my desk when a juvenile has some charges pending in criminal court and there are unrelated felony charges pending under juvenile jurisdiction. The short answer is no. The statutory structure that governs transfer does not allow for ordering transfer based on consent. Why?

Former President Donald Trump was indicted on Monday for the fourth time. A Fulton County grand jury returned a 41-count indictment charging Trump and 18 others with a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that indictment is the culmination of a two-year investigation launched by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis following Trump’s leaked January 2, 2021, phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, during which Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” him 11,780 votes.

Keep reading for more criminal law news.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on August 15, 2023. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.

The First Amendment permits criminal punishment for speech only when it falls within an established exception. True threats, incitement to violence, obscenity, and fighting words are among the categories of speech falling outside the protections of the First Amendment (although the fighting words exception is arguably defunct as a practical matter, as I wrote here). Each category has narrow definitions and standards that must be met as a matter of constitutional law before criminal liability can be imposed. My former colleague Jonathan Holbrook has written about the incitement exception and the true threats exception before. I wanted to write about another First Amendment exception, one that is much broader than the rest—speech integral to criminal conduct. Read on for the details.

This post summarizes published criminal law and related decisions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals released in July 2023. Cases that may be of interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous Fourth Circuit summaries are available here.

Last month the General Assembly enacted new G.S. 20-141.10 criminalizing so-called street takeovers. S.L. 2023-97. A street takeover occurs when a person blocks or impedes traffic on a highway, street, or public vehicular area with a motor vehicle in order to perform a motor vehicle stunt, contest, or exhibition. The new statute, effective for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2023, makes it unlawful for a person to operate a motor vehicle in a street takeover or to participate in or coordinate such an event. S.L. 2023-97 further authorizes the seizure of a motor vehicle operated in violation of G.S. 20-141.10.

I recently participated in a webinar with my colleagues Chris McLaughlin and Kirk Boone about the right of tax appraisers to enter private property.  The webinar is available for purchase here.  Professor McLaughlin has blogged about the issue before, and he has written again following our discussion.  This post encapsulates what I learned in preparation for that webinar.  It summarizes the laws governing criminal trespassing in North Carolina, glancing briefly back to their antecedents in the common law and looking ahead to recent statutory changes.

On August 22, 2023, from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm EST, the UNC School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab (the Lab) will host a FREE webinar, Reimagining Police Crisis […]