Rhoda Billings

In State v. Bryant, the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed a felony sentencing decision in which the trial judge imposed a term above the presumptive three-year sentence based on an aggravating factor that the offense involved damage causing great monetary loss. The evidence supporting the factor consisted of the victim's medical expenses of about $5,000 and lost wages of $1,000 resulting from personal injuries. The Court held that this statutory aggravating factor applies only to monetary loss from property damage, not from personal injury. Its reasoning rested on the plain wording of the factor within N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(a)(1)(m), which distinguishes between taking of property and damage causing loss, together with the 1979-1981 legislative history that separated bodily-injury and property-damage considerations into distinct provisions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Forbes Homes suing attorney John Trimpi and his firm to recover about $4,200 in payments the company made on Milford Simpson's mobile home loan after Trimpi sent a letter promising reimbursement from Simpson's personal injury settlement proceeds if Simpson approved. The trial court dismissed the action after finding no meeting of the minds that Trimpi would be personally liable and that Trimpi acted solely as Simpson's agent. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that Trimpi's role was that of an agent who did not personally agree to pay contrary to his client's later instructions and that Simpson's revocation of authorization constituted any breach of the underlying agreement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with first-degree kidnapping and first-degree rape who expressed dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel and requested to represent himself at trial. The trial court allowed the request and permitted the defendant to proceed pro se with standby counsel but did not conduct the inquiry mandated by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242 to confirm that the defendant understood his right to counsel, the consequences of waiving it, and the nature of the charges and punishments. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial, holding that the statutory inquiry is required to ensure a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel before allowing self-representation. The court reasoned that the record contained no evidence of such an inquiry and that the presence of standby counsel could not substitute for compliance with the statute.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Weaver, the defendant faced charges involving stolen property after a witness purchased tools from him during a police-monitored transaction; the central dispute was whether testimony about the witness's prior purchases of tools from the defendant over eight years, which implied dealings in stolen goods, was admissible at trial. The trial court overruled the defendant's objection and admitted the evidence, but the Court of Appeals reversed; the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld admission. The court reasoned that although the evidence suggested other crimes or wrongs, North Carolina Evidence Rule 404(b) permits its use when relevant to issues other than character, such as proving the witness's identification of the defendant as the seller, establishing a course of dealing between them, and showing a plan or scheme to sell stolen tools.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a shareholder derivative action brought by minority shareholders of All American Assurance Company against several directors and related entities, alleging fraudulent and self-dealing transactions. The company's board formed a special litigation committee that investigated the claims and recommended against pursuing most of them and settling the others. The trial court applied the business judgment rule, finding the committee independent and its investigation adequate, and granted summary judgment. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the business judgment rule may be invoked to dismiss derivative claims based on a special committee's recommendation when the committee consists of disinterested directors who acted in good faith with appropriate procedures.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved charges of first-degree rape and first-degree sexual offense against the defendant for acts committed against an eight-year-old child in 1983. The trial court convicted the defendant based on the victim's testimony and corroborative medical and social services evidence. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed both convictions and ordered a new trial, holding that the indictment sufficiently alleged the offenses under the applicable statutes but that the exclusion of evidence of sexual assaults by another man was prejudicial error because it deprived the defendant of the ability to present an alternative explanation for the physical findings and undermined his defense on both charges when tried together. The court also noted that certain testimony referencing multiple assaults improperly suggested they were committed by the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure