In a decision with significant implications for criminal defendants across North Carolina, the state Supreme Court ruled in State v. Chambers that replacing a juror with an alternate during deliberations does not violate a defendant’s constitutional right to a unanimous verdict from a jury of twelve. The May 2025 ruling reversed the Court of Appeals, which had vacated the defendant’s murder conviction and ordered a new trial.
For those facing criminal charges in North Carolina, this decision has practical consequences. Understanding how juror substitution works—and what rights you may still have when it happens—is essential for anyone navigating the criminal justice system.
What Happened in the Chambers Case
Eric Chambers was convicted of first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury after a shooting at a Raleigh motel. During his trial, the jury began deliberations late in the afternoon. After just thirteen minutes of deliberation, one juror asked to be excused for a medical appointment the next morning. The trial court released the jury for the evening and then excused the juror.
The next morning, the court substituted an alternate juror and instructed the reconstituted jury to “restart deliberations from the beginning” and “disregard entirely any deliberations taken place before the alternate juror was substituted.” The jury deliberated for approximately three hours before returning guilty verdicts on both charges.
The Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with Chambers that this mid-deliberation substitution violated his constitutional right to a twelve-person jury, reasoning that thirteen people had effectively participated in determining his guilt.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Newby focused on two safeguards built into N.C.G.S. § 15A-1215(a), which was amended in 2021 to permit juror substitution during deliberations:
First, the statute expressly mandates that “no more than twelve jurors participate in the jury’s deliberations.” Second, when a substitution occurs after deliberations have begun, the court must instruct the jury to begin deliberations anew.
The majority concluded that because juries are presumed to follow the court’s instructions, defendant’s jury obeyed the direction to restart deliberations entirely. Therefore, only twelve jurors—the original eleven plus the substituted alternate—participated in the deliberations that led to conviction.
The Dissent’s Constitutional Concerns
Justice Riggs, joined by Justice Earls, dissented sharply. The dissent argued that centuries of North Carolina case law establish that any deliberation involving more than twelve people creates a structural constitutional error that cannot be cured by instruction.
The dissent pointed to the Court’s 1997 decision in State v. Bunning, which held that when an alternate juror is substituted during deliberations, “the jury verdict was reached by more than twelve persons” because we must assume the excused juror “made some contribution to the verdict.”
As Justice Riggs wrote, the constitutional problem is inherent in the substitution itself. The remaining eleven jurors inevitably carry forward impressions, arguments, and dynamics from the first deliberation. The alternate cannot truly start fresh because the other jurors’ thinking has already been influenced by discussions they cannot simply forget.
Practical Implications for Criminal Defendants
For those facing federal criminal charges or state charges in North Carolina, this decision underscores several important points:
First, issues related to jury structure are automatically preserved for appellate review, even without objection at trial. The Court expressly held that such fundamental constitutional concerns do not require a contemporaneous objection to be raised on appeal.
Second, while mid-deliberation substitution is now permitted, defense attorneys must remain vigilant about how these substitutions occur. The instruction to restart deliberations must be given, and the circumstances surrounding any juror’s excusal may provide grounds for challenge.
Third, this ruling creates a split between the majority’s view that curative instructions can remedy the constitutional issue and the dissent’s position that structural errors cannot be cured. This disagreement may invite future challenges in cases with different facts.
Protecting Your Rights at Trial
If you are facing criminal charges, the composition and conduct of your jury is a fundamental constitutional protection. From jury selection through deliberations, your defense team must actively monitor for any irregularities that could compromise your right to a fair trial.
At The Chetson Firm, Damon Chetson is a Board Certified Specialist in State and Federal Criminal Law with extensive trial experience, including more than 25 jury trials. If you are facing serious criminal charges and need experienced counsel who understands how to protect your constitutional rights, contact us for a consultation.