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

The case involved a patient's medical malpractice claim against a cardiac surgeon, alleging that vein grafts in a 1979 coronary bypass procedure were sewn in backwards, causing later occlusions, a second surgery, and permanent disability. The jury returned a defense verdict on liability. The trial court had excluded the plaintiff's proffered evidence, including testimony about post-surgery conversations and statements in hospital records noting the surgeon's concern over unreversed grafts. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the excluded statements were inadmissible hearsay not qualifying under exceptions for medical-treatment statements or party admissions, as they were not made for treatment purposes by an authorized agent and lacked sufficient indicia of reliability or authorization.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

In State v. Lowery, defendant Paul Lowery was tried jointly with James Small and convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for killing Small's estranged wife pursuant to Small's solicitation, with evidence showing Lowery entered the home and strangled the victim. The court rejected Lowery's multiple assignments of error, including claims of improper joinder due to allegedly antagonistic defenses, failure to disclose inducements to witnesses, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper rebuttal evidence, insufficient evidence, and evidentiary prejudice, finding each without merit after reviewing the trial record. On the merger issue, the court held that Lowery's conspiracy conviction did not merge with his murder conviction because he actively participated in the killing, unlike Small whose liability rested solely on the conspiracy. The court concluded that Lowery received a fair trial free of prejudicial error and affirmed the convictions and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose from a construction project at the University of North Carolina where subcontractor Bolton sued general contractor Loving for over $350,000 in extra costs allegedly caused by improper scheduling that delayed Bolton's HVAC work by 480 days beyond the contract deadline. Loving counterclaimed for damages from a water line break attributed to Bolton and other costs, after which Bolton's insurer settled the water damage claim without Bolton's consent; Bolton then pleaded the resulting release as a defense to the counterclaim. The trial court granted summary judgment to Loving on the ground that Bolton's pleading ratified the release and thereby barred its own claims, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed, holding that ratification of the insurer's settlement of the discrete water-damage claim did not constitute an accord and satisfaction of the parties' broader, multi-issue dispute and therefore did not extinguish Bolton's original causes of action.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved minority shareholders of a newspaper publishing company who received promissory notes as part of the payment for the sale of the company's assets to the defendant. The notes contained provisions reducing or eliminating interest and accelerating payments if the holders competed with the buyer in specified counties, and the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that these non-compete clauses were invalid and unenforceable. The trial court dismissed the action, finding no justiciable controversy, and the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed that ruling after reviewing the record. The core reasoning was that declaratory relief requires an actual controversy based on practical certainty of future events, but the plaintiffs had presented no evidence of specific plans or firm intent to compete, only contingent possibilities dependent on a favorable court decision.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendants McKoy and Harrison, who were convicted of breaking and entering a storage building and larceny based primarily on accomplice testimony from Bowens, who had entered a plea agreement. At trial, the court overruled objections and permitted the prosecutor on redirect to question Bowens about other break-ins involving the defendants. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that evidence of the defendants' participation in other crimes was not admissible under Rule 404(b), as it was not relevant to any permissible purpose such as motive, intent, or common scheme and instead improperly suggested propensity. The court reasoned that such extrinsic conduct evidence must fit within specific exceptions and undergo balancing under Rule 403 for probative value versus prejudice before admission.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Davis, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder after shooting and killing Raleigh Police Captain Curtis Winston in the bedroom of his ex-girlfriend Karen Brown's apartment on May 12, 1984. The defendant testified that Brown had fired the shots during a struggle and that he was not involved, while the State presented evidence of a premeditated killing by the jealous ex-boyfriend, including threatening notes, witness statements, and the victim's autopsy. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen evidence to play a tape recording of Brown's initial statement to police and by refusing to instruct the jury on second-degree murder. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that there was no prejudicial error, as the tape was already used for impeachment via transcript during cross-examination and was not substantive evidence, and the evidence at trial supported only first-degree murder or acquittal with no basis for a lesser-included offense instruction. The court affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of first degree rape, first degree kidnapping, and robbery with a dangerous weapon after threatening the victim with a pocketknife. On appeal, the court found no error in the trial judge's instruction that the knife was a deadly weapon per se or in the prosecutor's closing argument referencing the lack of contradictory evidence. It also upheld corrections to the jury instructions on the kidnapping charge. However, the court remanded for a new sentencing hearing because convictions for both first degree rape and first degree kidnapping based on the rape violated double jeopardy, requiring the trial court to arrest judgment on one of the offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a natural mother had timely revoked her consent to the adoption of her child by the paternal grandparents. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the mother's consent was effectively revoked prior to the entry of the final adoption order. The court reasoned that the mother's August 14, 1983 letter to the adoptive parents constituted adequate and timely notice of revocation under the applicable three-month statutory period, as no specific revocation procedure was mandated at the time, and the letter was sent less than three months after consent and before the final order on November 15, 1983. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's order setting aside the adoption.

family lawprocedure

The case involved two defendants charged with kidnapping, robbery, rape, and sexual offenses against a victim, with the crimes occurring across both Stanly County and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Stanly County grand jury indicted the defendants for some offenses that the evidence showed took place in Mecklenburg County, leading the court to arrest judgment on those rape, sexual offense, and related robbery charges due to lack of jurisdiction. The opinion analyzed venue rules under N.C.G.S. § 15A-132, concluding that while counties may have concurrent venue for connected offenses, the indicting county must have proper authority, and dismissals in one county did not transfer exclusive venue. The court found no reversible error in the remaining convictions for kidnapping and other robberies that were properly supported by evidence from Stanly County. It also rejected claims regarding jury instructions and evidentiary issues as not constituting plain error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a breach of contract claim by plaintiff Sam Maffei against Alert Cable TV, alleging that the company failed to provide all promised ESPN programming without additional fees for 'Season Ticket' packages covering ACC basketball games, and seeking class certification for subscribers affected by signal blackouts. The trial court determined that the proper measure of damages was the minimal value of the missed programming (at most $0.29 per subscriber), concluded that such de minimis amounts made class certification inefficient and inappropriate under Rule 23, and retained jurisdiction over the individual claim. The Court of Appeals vacated that order, holding that the trial judge lacked authority to decide the measure of damages before addressing class certification criteria. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, ruling that trial judges have broad discretion in class certification decisions and may consider factors like judicial efficiency and the nonviable nature of claims too small to support individual litigation.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant John Ed Kuplen, who was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury and related sexual offenses after attacking a woman he knew in her apartment on December 19, 1983, using a knife to threaten and stab her, attempting rape, and forcing her to perform fellatio, leaving her with life-threatening injuries. The victim identified Kuplen shortly after the attack, supported by physical evidence including a matching button, blood in his boot, consistent head hair, and witness descriptions of his knife. On appeal, Kuplen argued he was denied effective assistance of counsel when the trial court refused to let his appointed public defender withdraw so he could retain private counsel, and he challenged the sentencing court's finding of an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel offense as well as its refusal to find good character as a mitigating factor. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the defendant received a fair trial free of prejudicial error, ruling that the denial of the withdrawal motion was proper, the aggravating factor was supported by evidence of excessive brutality and suffering, and the character evidence was insufficient to require a mitigating finding. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the prosecution of defendant Artis for rape, assault with a deadly weapon, and related charges arising from a May 1984 incident in which he forced entry into a home, attacked a nearly eight-months-pregnant woman with a butcher knife, stabbed her visiting mother-in-law, and raped the victim. The defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his pretrial motions for change of venue based on publicity and for individual voir dire and sequestration of jurors, as well as the use of the victim's pregnancy as a non-statutory aggravating factor at sentencing. The court ruled that the trial judge acted within statutory discretion under N.C.G.S. § 15A-952 by addressing the venue motion on the trial date without a separate hearing time and that no prejudice was shown from the denial of individual voir dire. It further held that the victim's advanced pregnancy was properly considered as an aggravating factor because it increased her vulnerability and the potential harm to her and her unborn child. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding no error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of defendant Moses for raping an eleven-year-old girl in 1982 and engaging in vaginal intercourse with her in 1984 while living in the home and assuming a parental role. On appeal, the sole issue was whether the trial court erred in admitting a letter the defendant wrote to the victim's mother from prison, in which he promised not to "bother" the victim anymore if allowed to return home. The court determined the letter was relevant because the jury could reasonably infer from the surrounding evidence of sexual abuse that the ambiguous reference to "bother" alluded to sexual activity, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice under Rule 403. The court further held that any objection was waived when the defendant later testified to the letter's contents without objection during cross-examination. The conviction was affirmed as the defendant received a fair trial without prejudicial error.

criminal law

The case involved a wrongful death claim by the estate of a tenant who died from carbon monoxide poisoning in a housing authority apartment, with allegations that a blocked chimney caused the buildup of gas. The plaintiff pursued claims including negligence and sought punitive damages. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that punitive damages may be recovered against a municipal corporation such as the Housing Authority in a wrongful death action because N.C.G.S. § 28A-18-2 expressly authorizes them, creating a statutory exception to the common-law immunity of municipalities from punitive damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure