North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

The defendant in State v. Phillips, No. COA25-275 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026), argued the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motion to dismiss based on a defective […]

A short-form murder indictment generally will not support a conviction for assault. That, at any rate, was the rule prior to State v. Singleton, 386 N.C. 183 (2024) (holding that […]

After State v. Singleton, 386 N.C. 183 (2024), an indictment is not rendered facially invalid by failure to allege all the elements of a crime. One issue that remains unresolved is the consequence of failure to allege the State’s theory. Two post-Singleton cases decided last year found reversible error when the trial court instructed the jury on a theory not alleged in the indictment. See State v. Wilson, 910 S.E.2d 407 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2024); State v. Little, 296 N.C. App. 424 (2024). More recently, in State v. Tate, No. COA24-450 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025), the Court of Appeals cited Singleton in support of its conclusion that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on a theory that was not alleged in the indictment. This post examines the opinion in Tate.

The North Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Singleton, No. 318PA22, __ N.C. __ (2024), brings about a transformation of North Carolina indictment law. The case “ends [a] centuries old saga” in deciding that the “common law jurisdictional indictment rule” is “no longer the law in this State.” Slip. op. 3, 40. My colleague, Joe Hyde, delved into the analysis and history set forth in the 84-page opinion here. This post will elaborate on the potential consequences for practitioners.

In its last batch of opinions, issued May 23, 2024, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided two indictment cases: State v. Singleton, No. 318PA22, __ N.C. __ (2024), and State v. Stewart, No. 23PA22, __ N.C. __ (2024). Stewart closely follows a recent precedent (In re J.U., 384 N.C. 618 (2023), discussed here), holding that nonconsensual sexual contact necessarily implies force, so an indictment alleging nonconsent need not also allege “the element of force.” Stewart, Slip Op. 8. Singleton, however, is by far the more significant. Beyond finding no defect in the indictment under review, the Supreme Court there announced the demise of the common law rule that an indictment that fails to allege all the elements of the offense is jurisdictionally defective. This post examines the new framework of indictment defects inaugurated by Singleton.

Statutes prescribing simplified charging language were intended to alleviate the burdensome pleading requirements of the common law.  See Wayne R. LaFave, et al., Criminal Procedure § 19.1(c).  Indeed, where a short-form pleading is statutorily authorized, it is not necessary to allege all the elements of the offense.  See State v. Jerrett, 309 N.C. 239, 259, 307 S.E.2d 339, 350 (1983).  But how closely must a short form track the language prescribed by statute?  The Court of Appeals recently decided a couple of cases that address the issue.  This post considers those cases.

Two recent opinions from the Court of Appeals illustrate the remarkable controversy currently underway over the specificity required of indictments.  In State v. Coffey, No. COA22-883, 2024 WL 675881 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2024), our Court of Appeals ruled an indictment for felony obstruction of justice was facially defective for failure to allege an essential element of the offense: the purpose of hindering or impeding a judicial or official proceeding or investigation.  By contrast, in State v. Jackson, No. COA22-280, 2024 WL 925480 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2024), our Court of Appeals ruled an indictment for habitual misdemeanor assault was sufficient though it failed explicitly to allege an element: causing physical injury.  This post attempts to reconcile the divergent analytical approaches taken in Coffey and Jackson.

Reminiscent of the Wars of the Roses, our Supreme Court’s recent opinion in State v. Lancaster, __ N.C. __, 895 S.E.2d 337 (2023), concerns an offense first codified in 1328 during the reign of Edward III.  The common law crime of going armed to the terror of the public, our Supreme Court there held, does not require allegation or proof that the conduct occurred on a public highway; hence, there was no facial defect in an indictment omitting this putative element.  Other elements not explicitly stated in the same indictment – for the purpose of terrifying, in a manner that would naturally terrify – were “clearly inferable.”  This post examines Lancaster to ascertain the direction of our Supreme Court’s avowed retreat from archaic pleading requirements.

A non-lawyer might be forgiven for being somewhat confused by the rules governing indictments.  The basics are summarized easily enough: a trial court’s jurisdiction depends on a facially valid indictment; an indictment is facially valid so long as it sufficiently alleges all the essential elements of the offense; and the essential elements consist of what the State must prove in order to obtain a conviction.  But these basics are so pocked with exceptions, so piled with caveats, that few cases are resolved by reference to them alone.  Our appellate courts have decided a few cases in the last several months which illustrate this complexity.  This post attempts to provide a brief recurrence to fundamental principles applicable to indictments and to throw a lifeline to prosecutors who discover a potential defect during a trial.  My colleagues have blogged pretty frequently about indictment issues, most recently Shea Denning addressing a recent opinion here.

When can a court arrest judgment in a case? And what does it mean to do so?