structural error in North Carolina

2025Defendant contends we should apply a structural error analysis to these issues to consider how our courts should “protect a defendant’s constitutional right to direct her own defense when the defendant’s counsel throws away that right ‘at trial.’ ” “Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from ‘structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism’ which are so serious that ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.’ ” State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 409 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 744 (2004) (quoting Arizon

2025Defendant contends we should apply a structural error analysis to these issues to consider how our courts should “protect a defendant’s constitutional right to direct her own defense when the defendant’s counsel throws away that right ‘at trial.’ ” “Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from ‘structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism’ which are so serious that ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.’ ” State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 409 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 744 (2004) (quoting Arizon

2025Defendant contends we should apply a structural error analysis to these issues to consider how our courts should “protect a defendant’s constitutional right to direct her own defense when the defendant’s counsel throws away that right ‘at trial.’ ” “Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from ‘structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism’ which are so serious that ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.’ ” State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 409 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 744 (2004) (quoting Arizon

2025Defendant contends we should apply a structural error analysis to these issues to consider how our courts should “protect a defendant’s constitutional right to direct her own defense when the defendant’s counsel throws away that right ‘at trial.’ ” “Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from ‘structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism’ which are so serious that ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.’ ” State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 409 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 744 (2004) (quoting Arizon

2004Though no objection was made, and the misstatement was not otherwise brought to the court's attention at trial, defendant Pope argues the instruction constitutes both structural error and plain error, entitling him to a new trial. *817 Structural error is rarely found to exist and consists of "a `defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.'" State v. Anderson, 355 N.C. 136 , 142, 558 S.E.2d 87 , 92 (2002) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 1265, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 , 331 (1991)).

2004Though no objection was made, and the misstatement was not otherwise brought to the court's attention at trial, defendant Pope argues the instruction constitutes both structural error and plain error, entitling him to a new trial. *817 Structural error is rarely found to exist and consists of "a `defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.'" State v. Anderson, 355 N.C. 136 , 142, 558 S.E.2d 87 , 92 (2002) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 1265, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 , 331 (1991)).

2021Weaver v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 137 S. Ct. 1899, 1907 (2017) (quotation omitted). ¶ 16 Our Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have identified those types of constitutional errors which rise to the level of structural error.

2021Weaver v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 137 S. Ct. 1899, 1907 (2017) (quotation omitted). ¶ 16 Our Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have identified those types of constitutional errors which rise to the level of structural error.

2005Since a jury did not find the aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt, this constitutes structural error, reversible per se, under State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 444 , 615 S.E.2d 256, 267 (2005), and we must grant the defendant a new sentencing hearing.

2005Since a jury did not find the aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt, this constitutes structural error, reversible per se, under State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 444 , 615 S.E.2d 256, 267 (2005), and we must grant the defendant a new sentencing hearing.

2004Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from "structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism" which are so serious that "`a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.'" Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1264-65 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302, 331 (1991) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3106 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460, 470 (1986)).

2004Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from "structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism" which are so serious that "`a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.'" Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1264-65 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302, 331 (1991) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3106 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460, 470 (1986)).

2025“The violation of the constitutional right to a public trial is a structural error, not subject to harmless error analysis.” State v. Rollins, 221 N.C.

2023“The violation of the constitutional right to a public trial is a structural error, not subject to harmless error analysis.” State v. Rollins, 221 N.C.

2021A biased trial court judge is a structural error requiring a new trial because it is a “well-recognized rule that every person charged with a crime has a right to a trial before an impartial judge and an unprejudiced jury in an atmosphere of judicial calm.” State v. Cousin, 292 N.C. 461, 462 , 233 S.E.2d 554, 556 (1977) (citation omitted). ¶9 The trial court’s open court comments encouraging juror participation were specifically directed at African Americans in the venire.

2021A biased trial court judge is a structural error requiring a new trial because it is a “well-recognized rule that every person charged with a crime has a right to a trial before an impartial judge and an unprejudiced jury in an atmosphere of judicial calm.” State v. Cousin, 292 N.C. 461, 462 , 233 S.E.2d 554, 556 (1977) (citation omitted). ¶9 The trial court’s open court comments encouraging juror participation were specifically directed at African Americans in the venire.

2021App. 581, 587 , 582 S.E.2d 617, 620 (2003) (“Structural error may arise by the absence of an impartial judge.” (citation omitted)).

2021App. 581, 587 , 582 S.E.2d 617, 620 (2003) (“Structural error may arise by the absence of an impartial judge.” (citation omitted)).

2020“Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism which are so serious that a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” State v. Thompson, 359 N.C. 77, 86 , 604 S.E.2d 850, 860 (2004) 5 STATE V.

2020“Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism which are so serious that a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” State v. Thompson, 359 N.C. 77, 86 , 604 S.E.2d 850, 860 (2004) 5 STATE V.

2023Ed. 2d 403, 414 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority.” The Supreme Court of the United States later found that “[f]ailure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury . . . [wa]s not a structural error.” Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 222 , 165 L.

2023Ed. 2d 403, 414 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority.” The Supreme Court of the United States later found that “[f]ailure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury . . . [wa]s not a structural error.” Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 222 , 165 L.

2021The Supreme Court has noted six instances where structural error had been found: (1) “total deprivation of the right to counsel”; (2) “lack of an impartial trial judge”; (3) “unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of defendant’s race”; (4) violation of “the right to self-representation at trial”; (5) violation of “the right to a public trial”; and (6) “erroneous reasonable-doubt instruction to jury.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 , 468–69 (1997). ¶ 14 This Court has previously applied the Supreme Court’s structural error interpretation in Fulminante and the six exceptions outlined in John

2021The Supreme Court has noted six instances where structural error had been found: (1) “total deprivation of the right to counsel”; (2) “lack of an impartial trial judge”; (3) “unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of defendant’s race”; (4) violation of “the right to self-representation at trial”; (5) violation of “the right to a public trial”; and (6) “erroneous reasonable-doubt instruction to jury.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 , 468–69 (1997). ¶ 14 This Court has previously applied the Supreme Court’s structural error interpretation in Fulminante and the six exceptions outlined in John

2010Although the omission of the element from the jury instructions impermissibly "infringe[d] upon the jury's fact-finding role" in violation of the Sixth Amendment's jury trial guarantee, id. at 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , the Court held that the error was not a structural error that " necessarily render[ed] a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence." Id. at 9 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 .

2010Although the omission of the element from the jury instructions impermissibly "infringe[d] upon the jury's fact-finding role" in violation of the Sixth Amendment's jury trial guarantee, id. at 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , the Court held that the error was not a structural error that " necessarily render[ed] a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence." Id. at 9 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 .

2012“The violation of the constitutional right to a public trial is a structural error, not subject to harmless error analysis.” Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149, 165 (4th Cir. 2000); see Waller, 467 U.S. at 49 n.9, 81 L.

2012“The violation of the constitutional right to a public trial is a structural error, not subject to harmless error analysis.” Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149, 165 (4th Cir. 2000); see Waller, 467 U.S. at 49 n.9, 81 L.

2012“The violation of the constitutional right to a public trial is a structural error, not subject to harmless error analysis.” Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149, 165 (4th Cir. 2000); see Waller, 467 U.S. at 49 n.9, 81 L.

2012“The violation of the constitutional right to a public trial is a structural error, not subject to harmless error analysis.” Id.

2019Defendant contends that the trial court committed a structural error when it used the ineffective assistance of counsel standard established in State v. Ali, 329 N.C. 394, 402 , 407 S.E.2d 183, 188 (1991), to deny his request for chosen counsel.

2019Defendant contends that the trial court committed a structural error when it used the ineffective assistance of counsel standard established in State v. Ali, 329 N.C. 394, 402 , 407 S.E.2d 183, 188 (1991), to deny his request for chosen counsel.

2019Defendant asserts the standard from State v. McFadden, 292 N.C. 609, 613-14 , 234 S.E.2d 742, 746 (1977), was instead appropriate.

2019Defendant asserts the standard from State v. McFadden, 292 N.C. 609, 613-14 , 234 S.E.2d 742, 746 (1977), was instead appropriate.

2019Because we hold the trial court committed a structural error when it applied the incorrect standard in analyzing Defendant’s request for new counsel, we need not reach Defendant’s other argument on appeal, which may not recur in his new trial.1 See, e.g., State v. Long, 196 N.C.

2019App. 22, 41 , 674 S.E.2d 696, 707 (2009) (“As we are granting defendant’s request for a new trial, and the other issues he has may not be repeated in a new trial, we will not address his other [arguments on appeal].”).

2017Cf. State v. Bunning , 346 N.C. 253 , 257, 485 S.E.2d 290 , 292 (1997) (improper alternate juror substitution after jury deliberations had already begun led to "[a] trial by a jury which ... is so fundamentally flawed that the verdict cannot stand."); State v. Bindyke , 288 N.C. 608 , 627, 220 S.E.2d 521 , 533 (1975) ("[T]he presence of an alternate in the jury room during the jury's deliberations violates N.C.

2017Cf. State v. Bunning , 346 N.C. 253 , 257, 485 S.E.2d 290 , 292 (1997) (improper alternate juror substitution after jury deliberations had already begun led to "[a] trial by a jury which ... is so fundamentally flawed that the verdict cannot stand."); State v. Bindyke , 288 N.C. 608 , 627, 220 S.E.2d 521 , 533 (1975) ("[T]he presence of an alternate in the jury room during the jury's deliberations violates N.C.

2013“North Carolina courts also apply a form of structural error known as error per se[,]” and “[l]ike structural error, error per se is automatically deemed prejudicial and thus reversible without a showing of prejudice.” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 514 , 723 S.E.2d at 331, 332 .

2013“North Carolina courts also apply a form of structural error known as error per se[,]” and “[l]ike structural error, error per se is automatically deemed prejudicial and thus reversible without a showing of prejudice.” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 514 , 723 S.E.2d at 331, 332 .