State v. Chambers and the Substitution and Discharging of Alternate Jurors Pursuant to G.S. 15A-1215(a)

Criminal law practitioners may recall that in 2021 the General Assembly amended G.S. 15A-1215(a) to permit the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations have begun in a criminal trial. S.L. 2021-94. When those changes became effective for jurors selected on or after October 1, 2021, North Carolina joined the federal courts and several other states that permit this practice. The practice was, however, challenged within a few years of enactment. And the North Carolina Court of Appeals in State v. Chambers, 292 N.C. App. 459 (2024), held that notwithstanding G.S. 15A-1215(a), the state constitutional requirement for unanimous verdict of twelve jurors in a criminal case prohibited the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations begin. Two weeks ago, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, upholding the statute as constitutional. This post will review the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Chambers, No. 56PA24, ___ N.C. ___ (2025), and consider how trial courts must handle alternate jurors in future trials. The facts. Chambers was charged with first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury after a man was killed and a woman injured in a shooting at a Raleigh motel. Chambers represented himself at trial and chose to be absent from the courtroom after the trial court cut off his closing argument for failing to follow the trial court’s instructions. The jury began its deliberations at 4:44 p.m. A few minutes before 5 p.m., the jury sent a note to [...]