Iryna Zarustska was a 23-year-old Ukrainian woman who fled her country as a refugee during the ongoing Ukraine–Russia war.[1] On August 22, 2025, she was stabbed and murdered in an unprovoked attack by a stranger, Decarlos Brown Jr., while riding home from work on the Lynx Blue Line in Charlotte, North Carolina.[2]
Brown Jr., a local man, was out on pretrial release under a written promise to appear after being charged with misusing 911.[3] Brown Jr. had a history of arrests, and a few months before the attack, he had called 911 from a local hospital and reported that someone had fed him a substance controlling when he ate and slept and controlling his words and actions.[4]He asked the police for help, but instead, he was arrested for misuse of 911.[5] Brown Jr. had a documented history of mental illness.[6] Although his mother had attempted to involuntarily commit him the year before, he was never committed.[7] He had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, lived in and out of homeless shelters in Charlotte, and was not taking medication for his schizophrenia.[8]
The shocking and brutal nature of Iryna’s murder reverberated across North Carolina and the nation. In response, lawmakers passed House Bill 307, known as Iryna’s Law.[9] Iryna’s Law was presented as legislation intended to address gaps in the criminal justice system related to mental health and to make it more difficult for violent, repeat offenders to be released pretrial.[10] However, the final bill as signed into law diverges sharply from that purpose. The law creates a new category of “violent offenses” and eliminates cash bail for defendants charged with them.[11] It modifies pretrial release procedures and bond requirements to make release more difficult for defendants with prior records, who were charged with violent crimes, or with histories of mental illness.[12] It also establishes new pretrial procedures requiring judicial officials to order involuntary commitment if a defendant was involuntarily committed within the previous three years or is considered dangerous.[13] Additionally, it increases penalties for crimes committed on public transit in Charlotte.[14]
The bill’s original focus was to simplify the process of involuntary commitment for defendants with recent commitment histories and to eliminate written promises to appear and cashless bail for defendants charged with violent offenses. Both issues were relevant in Brown Jr.’s case.[15] Yet, as the bill progressed, it expanded beyond those concerns. Notably, it includes sweeping changes to North Carolina’s death penalty framework, reopening longstanding debates about capital punishment.
Although the death penalty remains legal in North Carolina, the state has not carried out an execution since 2006.[16]More than 100 people remain on death row.[17] The de facto moratorium resulted from extensive litigation over the constitutionality of lethal injection, which, until the passage of Iryna’s Law, was the only authorized method of execution in the state.[18] In 2007, the North Carolina Medical Board prohibited physicians from participating in executions by lethal injection due to their determination that it violated the Hippocratic oath.[19] Although the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the Medical Board lacked authority to impose that prohibition, continued litigation over execution procedures, combined with challenges brought under the Racial Justice Act, effectively halted executions.[20]The Racial Justice Act allowed death row defendants to seek commutation if they could demonstrate that racial bias affected their case.[21] These legal challenges contributed to a nearly two-decade pause on executions.
During debate on Iryna’s Law, Senator Phil Berger proposed an amendment that significantly altered the state’s capital punishment procedures.[22] The amendment removed prohibitions on electrocution and lethal gas when lethal injection is unavailable, as it currently is in North Carolina, thereby authorizing some of the most inhuman and barbaric execution methods still allowed in America.[23] These methods are legal in a small minority of states, many of which face serious scrutiny from human rights groups over prison conditions and practices.[24]
Iryna’s law also prohibits the Task Force for Racial Equity in Criminal Justice from being recreated, except by an act of the General Assembly, limiting avenues for addressing racial discrimination in capital cases.[25] Beyond horrific execution methods, the law imposes strict time limits on capital appeals and post-conviction review. Any capital appeal or motion for appropriate relief must be filed within 120 days of certain triggering events, such as entry of judgment or denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.[26] A hearing on a motion for appropriate relief must occur within 24 months of filing, unless a court makes a written finding of extraordinary circumstances and good cause for delay.[27] Capital convictions are automatically reviewed by the North Carolina Supreme Court.[28] Under Iryna’s Law, that review must also occur within 24 months of judgment.[29]
The most significant deadlines apply retroactively to capital cases entered before December 1, 2025. All such cases with pending motions, claims, and appeals must be scheduled for hearing by December 1, 2026, and be fully heard by December 1, 2027.[30] North Carolina currently has 122 individuals on death row, all who have pending appeals or claims.[31] Legal scholars like James Coleman have warned that these deadlines will pressure judges to rush capital cases through the courts.[32]
According to the North Carolina Department of Justice, the average appeal takes six months to resolve.[33] Capital cases typically require substantially more time due to extensive records, forensic evidence, mitigation evidence, and constitutional claims.[34] The stakes are uniquely high. The harm caused by a wrongful execution is irreversible. All capital appeals in North Carolina are heard by the seven justices of the State Supreme Court.[35] To comply with the statute’s two-year mandate, those seven justices would need to resolve all 122 pending death row cases by December 1, 2027.[36] If the justices had begun immediately upon the law’s December 1, 2025, effective date and worked every day without one single break, they would have slightly less than six days per case to review the record, analyze the legal issues, hear arguments, and issue opinions.
This compression raises serious concerns about due process, access to justice, and the reliability of convictions. Death penalty cases demand careful, deliberate review. Accelerating them risks irreversible error. The concern is not theoretical. In 2024 alone, 147 individuals were exonerated nationwide.[37] On average, those cases took 13.6 years to overturn.[38]These exonerations demonstrate the fallibility of the criminal justice system, and the need for diligent review.
By imposing rigid deadlines on post-conviction review, Iryna’s Law drastically narrows the time available to uncover constitutional violations and newly discovered evidence to the point that competent judicial review is impossible. Critics argue that these constraints eviscerate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals facing capital punishment in North Carolina.[39]
Equally significant is what the law does not do. Despite its framing as a response to failures in addressing mental illness within the criminal justice system, the bill allocates no funding for mental health services, research, or treatment programs.[40] Proposed amendments to fund mental health resources were voted down.[41] The law does not increase the number of psychiatrists, psychologists, or crisis intervention professionals available to treat individuals in mental health crises.[42] It does not mandate additional training for law enforcement officers or judges on recognizing symptoms of severe mental illness, communicating with individuals experiencing psychosis, or assessing whether someone poses a danger to themselves or others.[43] The statute requires police to inform judicial officials if a defendant displays dangerous behaviors, yet does not define the term “danger to themself or others” within the criminal code.[44] Nor does it provide clear standards to guide those determinations.
In Brown Jr.’s case, the warning signs were present. He reported delusions to authorities. He had a history of arrests. He had a schizophrenia diagnosis. He was not medicated. Yet he was arrested for misusing 911 and released on a written promise to appear, without any intervention, treatment, or evaluation. Had there been structured mechanisms to divert individuals like Brown Jr. into inpatient treatment, with medication management and supervision, the outcome might have been different. Properly funded mental health infrastructure could allow law enforcement to direct individuals in acute psychiatric crisis to medical care and rehabilitation rather than short-term detention followed by release. Instead, Iryna’s Law expands capital punishment procedures and accelerates executions, while leaving systemic mental health deficiencies largely untouched.
Iryna Zarustska’s murder was an avoidable tragedy. Her death rightfully prompted urgent calls for reform. But legislation enacted in her name does little to address the gaps in mental health care that contributed to the circumstances of her attack. At the same time, it reshapes North Carolina’s death penalty framework in ways that will increase the risk of wrongful executions. If the stated goal was to prevent violence and protect the public, meaningful investment in mental health services, training, and diversion programs would have been a direct response. By contrast, compressed timelines for capital appeals and expanded execution methods move the state toward resuming executions without resolving the underlying systemic issues. The result is a law that bears the name of a victim of preventable violence, yet does not meaningfully reduce the likelihood of similar tragedies.
[1] Erik Versuzco & Sarah Brumfield, Charlotte officials under fire after man with long criminal history kills Ukrainian refugee on train, PBS (Sep. 8, 2025, at 5:01 PM ET), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlotte-officials-under-fire-after-man-with-long-criminal-history-kills-ukrainian-refugee-on-train.
[2] Id.
[3] Sydney Haulenbeek, North Carolina tightens pretrial release rules after light rail killing, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE (Sep. 23, 2025), https://www.courthousenews.com/north-carolina-tightens-pretrial-release-rules-after-light-rail-killing/.
[4] Versuzco, supra note 1.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] H.B. 307, 2025 Gen. Assemb., 2025—93 Sess. (N.C. 2025).
[10] Id.
[11] H.B. 307 at § 15A-531(9).
[12] H.B. 307 at § 15A-533.
[13] Id. at § 15A-533(b1).
[14] N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.16(d) (2025).
[15] Haulenbeek, supra note 3.
[16] Michael Hewlett, A Revived Death Penalty?, THE ASSEMBLY (Oct. 7, 2025), https://www.theassemblync.com/news/politics/justice/irynas-law-revive-death-penalty/.
[17] Id.
[18] See Avi Bajpai & Lexi Solomon, Death penalty is on the books in NC, but executions have been on hold since 2006, THE CHARLOTTEOBSERVER (Sep. 10, 2025), https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article312050633.html.
[19] Hewlett, supra note 16.
[20] Id.
[21] Bajpai, supra note 18.
[22] Nicholas Rhee, Duke professors critique ‘Iryna’s Law,’ which could resume executions in NC, DUKE CHRONICLE (Oct. 21, 2025), https://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-university-professors-critique-irynas-law-death-penalty-ncga-bill-josh-stein-20251022.
[23] H.B. 307 at § 15-187.
[24] See Authorized Methods by State, DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/methods-of-execution/authorized-methods-by-state (last visited Feb. 11, 2026).
[25] H.B. 307 at § 5.
[26] H.B. 307 at § 6.(a).
[27] Id.
[28] Id. at § 6.(b).
[29] Id.
[30] Id. at § 6.(e).
[31] Rhee, supra note 22.
[32] Id.
[33] How long does it take for an appeal to be decided by the Court?, NCDOJ, https://ncdoj.gov/hrf_faq/how-long-does-it-take-for-an-appeal-to-be-decided-by-the-court/ (last visited Feb. 11, 2026).
[34] Hewlett, supra note 16.
[35] Which court decides an appeal?, NCDOJ, https://ncdoj.gov/hrf_faq/which-court-decides-an-appeal/ (last visited Feb. 11, 2026).
[36] See Hewlett, supra note 16.
[37] Michael Hewlett, A Ticking Clock for Wrongful Conviction Claims, THE ASSEMBLY (July 15, 2025), https://www.theassemblync.com/news/politics/wrongful-conviction-motion-appropriate-relief-law-time-limit/#:~:text=Before%20trial%2C%20a%20defendant%20is,criminal%20defense%20attorney%20in%20Durham..
[38] Id.
[39] See Hewlett, supra note 16.
[40] Abigail Mocharnuk, N.C. General Assembly passes ‘Iryna’s Law’ following Charlotte light rail stabbing, THE DAILY TAR HEEL (Oct 1, 2025), https://dailytarheel.com/article/city-hb-307-irynas-law-20251002.
[41] Id.
[42] Rhee, supra note 22.
[43] Id.
[44] See H.B. 307 at § 15A-534.
