This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the Supreme Court of North Carolina released on April 6, 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.
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on April 4, 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 UNC School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab frequently gets questions from stakeholders about the scope of pretrial supervision & support services across the state. We are hoping to […]
Pretrial release is generally set by magistrates at a defendant’s initial appearance. As a special approach to setting conditions of pretrial release, the “48-hour rule,” as it is known in domestic violence cases, shifts that responsibility to judges. The rule comes from G.S. 15A-534.1, which provides that a judge rather than a magistrate must set a defendant’s pretrial release conditions during the first 48 hours after arrest for certain offenses. The 48-hour rule generates a lot of questions. Below, I have answered some fundamental questions that have arisen with this rule.
When a defendant is charged with a crime involving the possession of a controlled substance, what kind of knowledge or intent must the prosecution show? Must the state prove that the defendant knew that he or she possessed the substance? That the defendant knew that the substance was legally controlled? That the defendant knew the particular identity of the substance? Given the proliferation of controlled substances and the fact that many cannot be distinguished without laboratory equipment, these are important questions.
Sadly, this week’s news was dominated by yet another mass school shooting. Three nine-year-old students and three staff members at Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, were killed Monday morning by a lone shooter, who entered the school armed with two assault-style rifles and a handgun. Police shot and killed the suspect, 28-year-old Audrey Hale, a former student at the school.
The Associated Press reports that before Monday, there had been seven mass killings at K-12 schools since 2006. In each of those, the shooter was male. Hale, who was assigned female gender at birth, reportedly used he/him pronouns on social media.
Police say that Hale planned the massacre, drawing out a detailed map and surveilling the building. Hale, who was under a doctor’s care for an emotional disorder, bought seven firearms from five local gun stores between October 2020 and June 2022. Hale used three of them in Monday’s shooting.
The short answer is no. There is no specific legal requirement to enter a disposition in a delinquency matter in a certain period of time. At the same time, the law does provide some context on moving efficiently to disposition, including the ability, in certain circumstances, to appeal an adjudication before a disposition has been entered. This blog explains that context.
Today is GiveUNC – a single day of giving during which the UNC School of Government reaches out to current and past donors, course participants, and – you – loyal readers of the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
Please consider making a gift of any amount to the School to support its efforts — including this blog — to better the lives of North Carolinians through practical scholarship and advising.
You’ve probably heard of ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence chatbot built by the company Open AI. The most recent version of Open AI’s product, GPT-4, “scored in the 88th percentile on the LSAT . . . and did even better on the [Uniform Bar Exam] by scoring in the 90th percentile.” More details here, but this might reasonably make criminal lawyers wonder whether we could be replaced by AI.
A bill was introduced at the General Assembly this week to prohibit certain pet leasing agreements. H226 would make it a class 2 misdemeanor to lease or sell a cat or dog pursuant to an agreement in which the animal is subject to repossession in the case of a missed payment. I had not heard of such agreements, but according to this Business Insider article, they are legal in 42 states and are not uncommon. Typically they are used when a person wants to buy a pet but can’t pay the entire amount up front and so enters into a lease-to-own or installment purchase agreement that carries the risk of repossession. A bill to address pet leasing was previously introduced in 2021, but that bill (H849) did not advance out of committee. Keep reading for more news.