Beginning February 2025, North Carolina will implement sweeping updates to two of the most unusual — and most litigated — civil claims in the state: Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation. These traditional “heart-balm” torts allow a spouse to sue a third party (usually an affair partner) for interfering with or destroying the marriage.
While nearly every other state has abolished these causes of action, North Carolina remains the nation’s epicenter for them, with dozens of cases filed each year and several high-profile verdicts regularly making headlines.
For the first time in more than a decade, the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions — the standardized instructions judges give to juries — have been substantially revised. The new versions, marked:
“REPLACEMENT FEBRUARY 2025”
reflect major updates in appellate case law, clearer definitions for jurors, and a more modern structure that aligns with how courts are actually trying these cases today.
These revisions will have a real and immediate impact on:
- How judges charge juries
- How attorneys present and argue evidence
- How liability is assessed
- How damages are understood
- How parties evaluate cases for settlement
In short, this isn’t a minor cleanup or technical update — it’s the most significant rewrite of the AoA and CC instructions in well over ten years.
Below, we break down the most important changes, why the Committee made them, and what they mean for clients, practitioners, and anyone involved in one of these highly emotional claims.
1. Clearer Elements — and Clearer Proof Requirements
Alienation of Affection (PJI 800.20) – Updated February 2025
One of the most significant changes in the February 2025 update is the complete restructuring of the core Alienation of Affection instruction. The revised version provides a more organized, intuitive, and legally precise explanation of the three elements a plaintiff must prove. This matters because jurors understand these cases through the lens of the jury charge — and the clearer the language, the more reliably jurors can apply the law.
Under the new instruction, the plaintiff must prove:
- A genuine marital relationship existed.
The instruction now expands on what qualifies as a “genuine marital relationship.” Instead of leaving jurors guessing, it spells out the types of evidence they may consider — things like companionship, comfort, sexual intimacy, emotional support, and a “favorable mental attitude” between spouses. Importantly, the instruction clarifies that the marriage does not have to be perfect. Even a strained or imperfect marriage can still qualify if some degree of love and affection existed. - That relationship was alienated.
The definition of alienation is also strengthened. The jury is told that alienation means the destruction or diminishment of one spouse’s love and affection for the other. It no longer needs to be total; a substantial decline is enough. The instruction highlights that what matters is the spouse’s loss of affection, not whether the marriage ultimately ended in separation or divorce. - The defendant’s malicious and wrongful acts were the controlling cause of the alienation.
Perhaps the most important upgrade, the revised instruction explains in plain language:- What “malicious” conduct looks like
- What it means for conduct to be “wrongful”
- How the jury determines whether the defendant’s actions were the “controlling or effective” cause of the loss of affection
Why This Matters
The cleaner, more detailed definitions do more than simply modernize the language. They:
- Reduce confusion for jurors who are often unfamiliar with these torts
- Limit defense arguments based on technical interpretations of “love,” “malice,” or “wrongful” conduct
- Reinforce North Carolina’s strong public policy supporting these claims
- Make the plaintiff’s burden more understandable — and in practice, more achievable
By tightening the definitions and aligning them with current appellate decisions, the February 2025 revisions make Alienation of Affection claims more predictable at trial and increase the likelihood that juries will apply the law consistently across cases.
2. New Emphasis on North Carolina Location Requirements
One of the most important — and most practical — updates in the February 2025 Pattern Jury Instructions is the clarified requirement that the wrongful or malicious conduct must occur in North Carolina for North Carolina law to apply.
While this has technically been true for years under Court of Appeals precedent, the rule was often misunderstood, inconsistently applied, or left entirely to the attorneys to argue. The 2025 revisions bring this issue directly into the jury room.
The New Rule, Stated Plainly
The updated instructions now tell the jury:
You must find that at least one malicious or wrongful act occurred in the State of North Carolina.
This transforms a previously subtle legal principle into a mandatory factual determination. It also places real weight on where the conduct happened, not just what happened.
Why This Matters in Today’s Cases
Modern Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation actions often involve:
- Relationships that cross state lines
- Employment-based relocations
- Couples who separate in one state and move to another
- Online communication, traveling affair partners, or digitally based relationships
These realities create factual scenarios where:
- Texting happens in one state
- Travel happens in another
- Sexual activity occurs in yet another
- The marital home is somewhere else entirely
Prior to the 2025 update, the location issue was sometimes glossed over or treated as a secondary argument. Now it is front-and-center.
The Jury Must Now Decide the State Where the Tort Occurred
By inserting this requirement directly into the instruction, the Committee aligned the Pattern Instructions with holdings in:
- Jones v. Skelley, 195 N.C. App. 500 (2009)
- Hayes v. Waltz, 246 N.C. App. 438 (2016)
These cases make clear:
- Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation are transitory torts, meaning they follow the location of the injury — not the residency of the parties.
- For North Carolina law to apply, the wrongful acts must have occurred in North Carolina.
- If the conduct spans multiple states, the jury must decide where the injury occurred.
The new instructions reflect this rule directly and explicitly.
Practical Effects on Litigation
The updated language creates new strategic considerations:
For Plaintiffs:
- They will need to prove that at least one qualifying act happened in North Carolina.
- Text messages, trips, hotel reservations, GPS data, and phone records will become more critical.
- Cases that previously felt “NC-based” may have to be reframed with greater geographic detail.
For Defendants:
- Location becomes a new line of defense.
- If all relevant conduct occurred in another state, North Carolina law may not apply — and the claims may fail entirely.
- This creates early opportunities to challenge jurisdiction and venue, or to file dispositive motions.
For Judges and Juries:
- They now have a clear legal mandate to resolve factual disputes about location.
- “Where” becomes just as important as “what” and “when.”
Bottom Line: Location Is Now a Threshold Issue
With the February 2025 revisions, the question of where the affair-related conduct occurred is no longer an afterthought — it is an essential element of the claim.
This change brings consistency to the law, aligns the instructions with appellate precedent, and ensures that only conduct tied to North Carolina can trigger liability under North Carolina’s heart-balm torts.
3. Stronger Rules on Pre-Separation vs. Post-Separation Conduct
One of the most important clarifications in the February 2025 Pattern Jury Instruction updates is the firm line they draw between pre-separation conduct and post-separation conduct. This distinction has been part of North Carolina statutory law since the enactment of G.S. 52-13, but until now, jury instructions often buried or softened the rule. That is no longer the case.
The revised instructions make the separation rule unmistakably clear — and much harder for juries to misunderstand or misapply.
The Core Rule: Only Pre-Separation Acts Can Create Liability
Under G.S. 52-13(a), North Carolina prohibits basing Alienation of Affection or Criminal Conversation claims on acts that occur after the spouses physically separate with the intent that the separation be permanent.
This means:
- Post-separation flirtation = not actionable
- Post-separation dating = not actionable
- Post-separation sexual intercourse = not actionable
If the marriage is already over in a permanent way at the time of the conduct, the law treats the affair partner’s actions as legally irrelevant to causing the alienation.
The February 2025 instructions make this crystal clear by directly instructing jurors that:
They may not base liability on any act occurring after a permanent physical separation.
Post-Separation Conduct Can Be Used — But Only for a Limited Purpose
The new instructions also adopt the rule from Pharr v. Beck (2001) — a rule that had become muddied in more recent years.
They emphasize that post-separation conduct may be considered only to corroborate pre-separation conduct. In other words:
- If there is solid evidence of a relationship before the separation,
- Then after-the-fact texts, trips, photos, or continued sexual activity may help confirm what was already happening earlier.
What it cannot do is create liability on its own.
This means:
- Post-separation conduct cannot be the first evidence of an affair.
- Post-separation conduct cannot substitute for missing pre-separation acts.
- The jury must anchor liability solely to what happened before the physical split.
This is a critical distinction — and now jurors are told directly, in plain English.
The “Permanent” Separation Requirement
Another major clarification:
It is not enough that the spouses physically separated. The separation must have occurred with the intent that it be permanent — and either spouse’s intent is enough.
The instructions now emphasize:
- The separation date is a factual question, not automatic.
- Evidence may show attempts at reconciliation.
- A temporary separation does not bar the claim.
- The jury must decide whether permanence existed at the time of the split.
This aligns with cases like McCutchen v. McCutchen (2006), where the Supreme Court held that a separation does not automatically end the marital affection or the possibility of alienation.
Why This Rewrite Matters
This piece of the update has powerful implications on both sides of the “heart-balm” aisle:
For Plaintiffs:
- They must thoroughly document pre-separation conduct.
- They must show that affection still existed before the split.
- They can still use later conduct — but only to “connect the dots,” not to create the dots.
For Defendants:
- Post-separation conduct provides a strong shield.
- If the affair began after a permanent split, liability is unlikely.
- Defendants now have a clearer statutory and instructional basis to seek dismissal or summary judgment.
For Juries:
- They now receive a direct, uncomplicated explanation of the law.
- There is far less room to “punish” a defendant for actions that occurred only after the marriage was already over.
- The burden on plaintiffs becomes both more straightforward and more precise.
Bottom Line: The 2025 Instructions Reinforce a Hard Boundary
These updated instructions eliminate the ambiguity that previously led juries to consider post-separation behavior as if it were part of the wrongful acts. North Carolina law draws a sharp line between pre-separation and post-separation conduct — and as of February 2025, the jury instructions will enforce that line more clearly than ever.
This strengthens the legal framework, ensures verdicts are consistent with the statute, and makes trials more predictable.
4. Criminal Conversation Gets a Full 2025 Rewrite
Criminal Conversation (PJI 800.25) – Updated February 2025
The February 2025 revision of Pattern Jury Instruction 800.25 marks the most substantial modernization of the criminal conversation instruction in decades. Criminal conversation — North Carolina’s civil claim for adultery — has always been a strict-liability tort: if a defendant had sexual intercourse with someone who was married, liability attached. But prior jury instructions were outdated, sometimes confusing, and often lacked the clarity needed for jurors unfamiliar with these rare and emotionally charged cases.
The new instruction fixes that.
The 2025 update lays out the law with sharper precision and a more modern structure, highlighting several key principles that reshape how these cases will be presented in court.
One Act Is Enough — No Pattern Required
The instruction now clearly tells jurors that:
A single act of sexual intercourse between the defendant and the plaintiff’s spouse is sufficient for liability.
This removes any lingering confusion about whether the plaintiff must prove an ongoing affair, an emotional relationship, or multiple encounters. The tort has always been strict liability — but the 2025 instructions emphasize this more forcefully than ever.
Even one sexual encounter, proven by the greater weight of the evidence, satisfies the claim.
No Requirement That the Defendant Knew the Spouse Was Married
The updated instruction also reminds jurors that:
The defendant does not need to know the spouse was married.
This is consistent with long-standing North Carolina law and with the principle that an adulterer “assumes the risk” that a sexual partner may be married. The Committee’s decision to highlight this in bolder, clearer language prevents jurors from being misled by sympathy-based arguments or misunderstandings about fault.
This is especially important in today’s world of online relationships, dating apps, and social media, where people may claim they were unaware of someone’s marital status.
Consent, Initiation, and Willing Participation Are Not Defenses
The 2025 rewrite also eliminates any ambiguity about the spouse’s role. The instructions now explicitly state that:
- The spouse’s consent does not excuse the defendant.
- The spouse’s initiation does not excuse the defendant.
- Even if both parties willingly engaged in the encounter, the defendant still bears liability.
This reflects the underlying purpose of the tort: protecting the marital relationship, not assessing the moral blameworthiness of the affair partner.
The only substantive defense remains the extremely narrow “connivance” defense — where the plaintiff, not the spouse, must have encouraged or approved the sexual relationship. And that defense is all but nonexistent in modern practice.
Plaintiff’s Past Infidelity Cannot Be Used Against Them
Another important clarification is the instruction that:
The plaintiff’s own prior affairs or infidelity cannot be considered.
This prevents defendants from attempting to re-litigate the entire marriage or blame the plaintiff for unrelated conduct. It focuses the jury solely on the question of adultery between the defendant and the spouse.
Earlier versions of the instruction allowed too much wiggle room for defendants to raise inflammatory or prejudicial evidence about the plaintiff’s past behavior. The 2025 revision closes that door.
The Beavers v. McMican (2024) Rule: Sexual Intercourse = Malice
Perhaps the most impactful addition is the explicit incorporation of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s 2024 holding in Beavers v. McMican:
Sexual intercourse with a married person is, itself, an act of malice.
This rule is monumental.
While criminal conversation does not require proof of malice (it’s strict liability), malice is a required element in Alienation of Affection. In hybrid cases — where plaintiffs bring both AoA and CC claims — Beavers effectively allows the plaintiff to satisfy the “malice” element of Alienation of Affection through proof of sexual intercourse alone.
The updated jury instructions now spell this out plainly, formally integrating Beavers into trial practice statewide.
Why This Rewrite Significantly Strengthens Plaintiffs’ Positions
The new PJI 800.25 dramatically improves the plaintiff’s trial posture in several ways:
- A clear, modern definition of the tort removes confusion that previously benefited defendants.
- The explicit malice = intercourse rule strengthens hybrid AoA + CC claims.
- The barred defenses (ignorance of marriage, consent, willingness) eliminate common distraction arguments.
- The instruction sharply limits the ability to introduce prejudicial evidence about the plaintiff.
- The structure makes the tort easier for jurors to understand — something that almost always benefits the party with the lighter burden (the plaintiff).
Defendants now have fewer avenues for argument, less room for jury sympathy, and less ambiguity to exploit.
5. Why These Changes Matter for Clients
The February 2025 Pattern Jury Instruction revisions don’t just change wording. They fundamentally change how Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation cases are understood, evaluated, and argued in North Carolina courtrooms. These updates affect every stage of litigation — from pre-suit investigation, to settlement negotiations, to trial strategy, to jury deliberations.
Here’s what these changes mean from the perspective of the people who actually have the most at stake.
For Plaintiffs (the spouse bringing the claim)
The updated instructions make these cases clearer, cleaner, and more predictable, which is crucial because jurors often start these trials with little knowledge of the law and strong emotions about infidelity.
- Clearer standards make successful claims more predictable.
The February 2025 instructions remove ambiguity and tighten legal definitions. Plaintiffs no longer have to worry that jurors will misunderstand terms like “malice,” “wrongful conduct,” or “proximate cause.” The trial judge now gives jurors precise, modern language, making it easier for them to apply the law exactly as intended. - The “malice as a matter of law” rule in CC cases is extremely powerful.
Thanks to Beavers v. McMican (2024) — now fully incorporated into the new instructions — proof of sexual intercourse automatically satisfies the malice requirement. This dramatically strengthens hybrid Alienation + Criminal Conversation cases, because the same evidence that proves CC now helps establish an essential element of AoA. - Juries receive stronger, structured, more intuitive guidance.
The instructions now read like a logical checklist:- Was there a genuine marriage? Was affection destroyed? Did the defendant cause it? Did the acts occur in NC? Did the acts occur before a permanent separation?
Bottom line: Plaintiffs gain clarity, predictability, and leverage.
For Defendants (the affair partner)
The updated instructions tighten the law in ways that cut off several common defense strategies, but they also sharpen certain protections that defendants can now rely on more confidently.
- “They were already separated” and “the marriage was bad” defenses are more restricted.
The instructions make it absolutely explicit:- Only pre-separation conduct counts.
- The separation must have been permanent.
- “Troubled marriage” arguments don’t eliminate liability if affection still existed.
“Hey, the marriage was already falling apart.” If affection existed, and the affair contributed to its destruction, the defendant can still be liable. - Location-based challenges now become a major defense weapon.
Because the instructions plainly require that at least one act must occur in North Carolina, defendants now have a clear, powerful factual issue to contest. If all conduct occurred:- in South Carolina,
- or Virginia,
- or Tennessee,
- or online with no NC nexus,
- motions to dismiss,
- summary judgment motions,
- directed-verdict motions, and
- challenges to subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.
- Post-separation conduct cannot be used to create liability.
The instructions now state this directly and forcefully. No matter how scandalous the post-separation relationship may be, it cannot create liability unless it corroborates earlier acts. This is a major shield for defendants whose relationships began legitimately after a permanent break.
Bottom line: Certain defenses weaken, but others — especially location and timing — become far stronger and more central.
For Settlement Negotiations
These new instructions will reshape how these cases settle.
- Plaintiffs gain leverage.
The updated instructions make the elements more plaintiff-friendly and more aligned with recent appellate decisions. Clearer standards = clearer paths to verdicts. Many plaintiffs (and their attorneys) will feel more confident taking cases to trial. - Defendants must reassess exposure earlier.
Because:- malice is easier to prove, the path to liability is better defined, and juries get a simpler roadmap,
- pre-separation conduct, or North Carolina-based encounters, or clear intercourse.
- Both sides benefit from more predictable outcomes.
Ambiguity is the enemy of settlement. Clarity facilitates resolution. These instructions inject clarity into a historically unpredictable area of North Carolina law.
Bottom line: Expect earlier settlements, stronger plaintiff negotiation positions, and more strategic defense evaluations.
6. Are Damages Instructions Changing?
Short answer: Not yet.
While the February 2025 updates dramatically overhaul the liability instructions for both Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation, the damages instructions have not been updated. Courts and practitioners will continue relying on the older versions, which date back to:
- June 2007
- June 2010
- June 2015
These older damages instructions still control how juries are told to calculate:
- Compensatory damages
- Emotional-distress damages
- Loss-of-consortium-type damages
- Punitive damages
- Aggravating factors (fraud, malice, willful or wanton conduct)
- Nominal damages (in Criminal Conversation cases)
Even though these instructions remain valid, they pre-date major appellate cases, major statutory changes, and the evolution in how juries view relationship-based torts in the age of smartphones, digital evidence, and interstate relationships.
Why the Damages Instructions Are Due for an Update
Although unchanged for now, several factors strongly suggest that new or revised damages instructions are likely on the horizon:
- Liability instructions just received their biggest rewrite in over a decade.
Historically, when the Pattern Jury Instructions Committee updates one part of a tort, the damages section often follows shortly afterward. The February 2025 overhaul focuses tightly on liability, but it exposes the age and limitations of the older damages instructions. - Modern cases feature more complex evidence of harm.
Marriages today generate:- Thousands of text messages, GPS location histories, photos, videos, social media records, digital banking, and travel traces
- Emotional trauma, Betrayal, Humiliation, Monetary losses (therapy, relocation, counseling, etc.)
- Punitive damages are increasingly central.
In many Alienation and Criminal Conversation verdicts, punitive damages far exceed compensatory damages. In fact, $500,000 to $1.5 million punitive awards are not uncommon. Because punitive damages often drive the settlement value of these cases, modernizing the punitive framework is a logical next step for the Committee. The current instructions don’t incorporate:- Post-2015 case law, Clarifications on “actual malice” vs. “legal malice”, The impact of Beavers v. McMican (2024), New standards for bifurcated punitive trials
- Juries need clearer guidance in high-emotion trials.
Alienation and Criminal Conversation cases are uniquely emotional. Jurors often struggle with:- How to assign dollar amounts to humiliation, How to weigh lost marital affection, How to value destroyed relationships, How to separate anger from compensatory evidence
The Bottom Line
Although the February 2025 release does not update the damages instructions, this omission appears temporary. The liability overhaul creates strong momentum toward revisiting the damages framework next.
Given the importance of punitive damages in heart-balm litigation — and the evolving nature of digital evidence, emotional harm, and marital relationships — the Committee will likely address damages in a future update.
For now, attorneys will continue using:
- Compensatory-damages instructions from 2007/2010
- Punitive-damages instructions from 2015
- Hybrid instructions adapted in practice but not yet formally revised
Until new guidance is issued, lawyers and judges must bridge the gap between modernized liability instructions and older damages guidance — a task that often requires skillful argument and careful tailoring.
7. Bottom Line: 2025 Will Change These Cases
North Carolina remains one of the very few states in the nation that still recognizes Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation. These claims have deep historical roots and continue to serve a meaningful purpose in modern family-law litigation — protecting the integrity of marriage and holding third parties accountable when they intentionally or recklessly interfere with that relationship.
The February 2025 Pattern Jury Instruction revisions make one thing unmistakably clear:
North Carolina courts still take these torts seriously — and the legal framework surrounding them is evolving, not fading away.
These changes are not cosmetic. They represent a deliberate effort by the Pattern Jury Instruction Committee to modernize, clarify, and align the jury charges with today’s law, today’s technology, and today’s cases.
The 2025 updates reflect:
- New appellate case law.
Especially Beavers v. McMican (2024), which reshaped malice and tightened the standards for liability in hybrid claims. The instructions now match the current legal landscape instead of relying on older, outdated judicial assumptions. - The modern nature of relationship disputes.
Affairs today happen across state lines, across devices, and across digital platforms. The updated instructions acknowledge:- interstate conduct
- modern communication
- online evidence
- the complexities of long-distance relationships
- Greater clarity for jurors.
Jurors often walk into these trials with strong emotions but very little legal knowledge. The updated instructions give them:- precise definitions
- cleaner elements
- stronger guidance
- straightforward structure
- More consistency for trial judges.
Judges statewide now have:- uniform language
- uniform elements
- uniform explanations of malice, wrongful acts, and pre- vs. post-separation conduct
- Less doctrinal uncertainty for lawyers and litigants.
Attorneys can now better evaluate:- case strength
- exposure
- jurisdiction
- settlement value
- strategic posture
What This Means for Anyone Involved in These Cases
Whether you are bringing an Alienation of Affection or Criminal Conversation claim, or defending against one, these revisions will directly shape:
- how your case is investigated
- what evidence matters most
- where the case can be filed
- whether conduct occurred in North Carolina
- how malice is proven
- how jurors will evaluate liability
- how settlement discussions unfold
- whether the case survives pre-trial motions
These changes will influence every stage of the litigation process.
The Big Takeaway
The February 2025 Pattern Jury Instructions are a signal — clear, deliberate, and unmistakable — that North Carolina’s heart-balm torts are not going anywhere. They are being strengthened, modernized, and aligned with current law.
If anything, these updates make Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation more accessible, more coherent, and more predictable than they have been in years.
Anyone pursuing or defending one of these claims should understand that the 2025 revisions are not just procedural — they are strategic. They will shape how cases are charged, argued, tried, and decided for years to come.
Need Help With an Alienation of Affection or Criminal Conversation Case?
Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation cases are some of the most emotionally charged, reputation-impacting, and strategically complex civil actions in North Carolina. These claims carry real consequences — legally, financially, and personally. If you’re involved in one of these cases, you need an attorney who understands not just the law, but the psychology, the strategy, and the courtroom dynamics behind them.
At Adkins Law, we represent clients throughout Mecklenburg County and the Lake Norman region — including Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson, Charlotte, Mooresville, and all surrounding communities — in the full range of family-related civil litigation. We provide experienced, strategic guidance in matters such as:
- Alienation of Affection
- Criminal Conversation (adultery claims)
- Separation and Divorce
- Child Custody and Child Support
- Alimony / Post-Separation Support
- Equitable Distribution (Property Division)
- Mediation, Settlement Negotiation, and Trial Litigation
Whether you are pursuing a heart-balm claim or defending against one, the recent 2025 changes in North Carolina’s Pattern Jury Instructions will directly affect your case. A consultation with an experienced attorney can help you understand your exposure, your options, and your best path forward.
If you have questions, need a case evaluation, or want to develop a strategic plan tailored to your situation, we’re here to help.
Adkins Law, PLLC – Your Huntersville Divorce & Family Law Team
🌐 www.HuntersvilleLawyer.com
📞 (704) 274-5677
Serving the entire Lake Norman area with proven experience, strong advocacy, and a commitment to real-world results. Click here to contact Adkins Law to arrange a consultation with an experienced family law attorney in Huntersville NC.
Leave a Reply