Status message

  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

State v. Boderick, ___ N.C. App. ___, 812 S.E.2d 889 (Mar. 20, 2018)

Because the constitutional amendment permitting waiver of a jury trial only applies to defendants arraigned on or after 1 December 2014, a bench trial was improperly allowed in this case where the defendant was arraigned in February 2014. The session law authorizing the ballot measure regarding waiver of a jury trial provided that if the constitutional amendment is approved by the voters it becomes effective 1 December 2014 and applies to criminal cases arraigned in Superior Court on or after that date. After the ballot measure was approved, the constitutional amendment was codified at G.S. 15A-1201(b). That statute was subsequently amended to provide procedures for a defendant’s waiver of the right to a jury trial, by a statute that became effective on 1 October 2015. The court rejected the State’s argument that because of the subsequent statutory amendment, the constitutional amendment allowing for waiver of a jury trial applies to any defendant seeking to waive his right to a jury trial after 1 October 2015. The amendment to the statute does not change the effective date of the constitutional amendment itself. The court concluded: “Accordingly, a trial court may consent to a criminal defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial only if the defendant was arraigned on or after 1 December 2014.” The parties may not stipulate around this requirement. Here, because the defendant was arraigned in February 2014, he could not waive his right to a trial by jury. The court found that automatic reversal was required.