Skip to main content

Category: affirmative defenses

Legislative Amendment to the Affirmative Defense against Some Local Ordinance Violations

Following the Senate, the North Carolina House of Representatives voted to override Governor Cooper’s veto on Session Law 2024-57 (Senate Bill 382) last week. The legislation effects sweeping change to the executive and judicial branches and elections law. It marks the third round of public support for Hurricane Helene disaster relief. Subpart II-D (“Justice and Public Safety”) of the bill also modifies an affirmative defense available to individuals charged with violating certain local ordinances. This post explains the statutory amendment and its potential impacts.

Trapped but not Entrapped? State v. Keller

Back in May, a divided Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on entrapment in an online solicitation of a minor case. Entrapment isn’t exactly a common defense (as Jeff noted here). When it comes up, it’s often in drug cases, but it can also arise in computer solicitation cases where law enforcement officers pretend to be underage. State v. Keller, ___ N.C. App. ___, 828 S.E.2d 578 (May 21, 2019), review allowed, ___ N.C. ___ (August 14, 2019), is an example of such a case and appears to be the second reported decision dealing directly with the defense in this context, so I wanted to flag it for readers. Fair warning, this post recounts some of the sexually graphic discussions at issue in the case.

Defense Counsel Can’t Present an Insanity Defense without the Defendant’s Consent

The court of appeals recently addressed an issue that has divided courts elsewhere: whether defense counsel may present an insanity defense without the defendant’s consent. The court ruled that defense counsel may not do so, stating that “because the decision of whether to plead not guilty by reason of insanity is part of the decision of what plea to enter, the right to make that decision is a substantial right belonging to the defendant.”