State v. Martin

The recent filing of *State v. Martin* as an unpublished opinion by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 1, 2026, highlights the critical distinction between published and unpublished appellate decisions in North Carolina. Under Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, unpublished opinions do not constitute controlling legal authority, and their citation is generally disfavored. While there are specific, limited exceptions allowing for their citation—primarily for purposes of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or the law of the case—practitioners must exercise caution. This article explores the implications of such decisions, the procedural rules governing their use, and the strategic considerations for legal professionals navigating North Carolina’s appellate landscape.

On July 1, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals filed its decision in *State v. Martin*, identified by case numbers 22CR000784-220, 22CR000792-220, 22CR000793-220, and 22CR000794-220 from Cleveland County. Notably, the opinion was designated as "unpublished." This designation carries significant weight within North Carolina's legal system, fundamentally shaping how the decision can be cited and its precedential value. For practicing attorneys, understanding the nuances of unpublished opinions is not merely a matter of procedural compliance but a strategic imperative that can impact litigation outcomes and appellate advocacy.

The treatment of unpublished opinions in North Carolina is primarily governed by Rule 30(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. This rule was established to manage the increasing volume of appellate decisions and to ensure that only opinions deemed to have lasting precedential value are formally published. Rule 30(e)(1) explicitly states that the Court of Appeals is not required to publish an opinion in every decided case, particularly if the panel determines the appeal involves no new legal principles or would have no value as a precedent. Historically, the rule has evolved; prior to 2002, Rule 30(e)(3) strictly prohibited the citation of unpublished opinions for any purpose in other cases. The current iteration, however, offers a more nuanced approach, allowing for limited exceptions while still emphasizing their non-controlling nature.

Under the current Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, an unpublished decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals "does not constitute controlling legal authority." Consequently, the citation of such opinions in briefs, memoranda, and oral arguments in both trial and appellate divisions is "disfavored." This means that while an unpublished opinion may offer insight into how the Court of Appeals has addressed similar factual scenarios or legal arguments, it cannot be relied upon as binding precedent in the same way a published opinion can. The rationale behind this policy is rooted in judicial efficiency and the desire to prevent the proliferation of non-essential legal authority, ensuring that published reports contain only those decisions that truly contribute to the development of the law.

Despite the general disfavor, Rule 30(e)(3) carves out specific exceptions where citation is permitted. These exceptions are primarily for the purpose of establishing "claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or the law of the case." In such instances, an unpublished opinion may be cited to demonstrate that a particular issue or claim has already been litigated and decided between the same parties, or to show that a legal principle has been established as the law for that specific case. Beyond these narrow exceptions, a party may still cite an unpublished opinion if they genuinely believe it possesses "precedential value to a material issue in the case and that there is no published opinion that would serve as well." However, this permissive citation comes with a procedural requirement: the citing party must serve a copy of the unpublished opinion on all other parties and on the court. This can be accomplished by including the copy in an addendum to a brief or memorandum.

The practical implications for attorneys are significant. While the specific facts of *State v. Martin* are not detailed in its unpublished status, the decision itself serves as a reminder of these rules. Attorneys should generally prioritize published opinions as controlling authority. When considering an unpublished opinion, such as *State v. Martin*, for its persuasive value, practitioners must carefully weigh whether it truly offers unique insight not found in published cases and whether it falls within the permitted exceptions. The North Carolina Court of Appeals itself has shown some internal debate regarding the citation of unpublished opinions, with some judges expressing strong disapproval of their increasing frequency in briefs. Furthermore, parties can move for the publication of an unpublished opinion, as recently seen in *Hill v. Town of Kill Devil Hills*, where the court agreed to publish a decision due to its perceived value as legal precedent. This mechanism provides an avenue for attorneys to advocate for the broader recognition of a decision's legal significance.

The designation of *State v. Martin* as an unpublished opinion underscores the ongoing importance of North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 30(e)(3) for legal practitioners. While these decisions do not establish controlling precedent, they are not entirely without utility. Attorneys must meticulously adhere to the rules governing their citation, particularly the requirement to serve copies when relying on them for their persuasive value or within the narrow exceptions of preclusion and law of the case. As the volume of appellate decisions continues to grow, a discerning approach to unpublished opinions remains crucial for effective advocacy in North Carolina's courts. Practitioners should stay abreast of any further developments or interpretations of Rule 30(e)(3) and consider the strategic implications of moving for publication when an unpublished opinion addresses novel or critical legal issues.