North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Defendant asserted that his trial judge (1) was a former assistant district attorney who prosecuted him for one of the offenses that now serves as a conviction supporting his habitual felon indictment, (2) is married to a former Iredell County ...

Where the state alleged that defendant had absconded probation supervision by failing to report as directed by his probation officer, failing to return the officer’s phone calls, and failing to provide the officer with a certifiable address, and where the ...

  The question of first impression before us is whether the defendant qualifies as an Indian under the federal Indian Major Crimes Act. We apply the tests from United States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. 567 (1846), and St. Cloud v. ...

  Flash bang grenades produce bright flashes and loud bangs in order to disorient people. Since G.S. § 14-288.8(a) defines a “weapon of mass death and destruction” to include “Any explosive or incendiary … grenade,” the possession of flash bang ...

We have never previously held that a criminal defendant can forfeit the right to counsel; however, we agree with the Court of Appeals that a defendant who engages in egregious misconduct, such as seriously obstructing the proceedings or assaulting his ...

Defendant, a convicted felon, presented evidence that, when he arrived at his home and was faced with an angry, armed group of people hoping for a fight, he grabbed a gun from his cousin to ward off the armed group ...

  Even though the trial court should not have allowed a co-conspirator to testify about (1) defendant’s knowledge of whether her brother had a gun or (2) cell phone data retention, the admission of such testimony was not plain error. ...

  Although the trial court erroneously omitted the words “and that the defendant … used excessive force” from its voluntary manslaughter final mandate, the trial court correctly instructed the jury on three separate occasions during the charge on the state’s ...

  On remand for reconsideration in light of State v. Grady, 372 N.C. 509, 831 S.E.2d 542 (2019) (Grady III), in which our Supreme Court held that mandatory lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM) under G.S. §§ 14-208.40A(c) and 14-208.40B(c) was unconstitutional ...

  The state showed that defendant failed to provide accurate contact information, made his whereabouts unknown, failed to make himself available for supervision, actively avoided supervision, and knowingly failed to make contact with his probation officer after his release from ...