Superior Court of California, County of San Benito — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
State v. Mumford
Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2010-10-08 · cited 98×
In State v. Mumford, the defendant was tried on charges including driving while impaired and five counts of felony serious injury by vehicle after his car struck pedestrians at a party; the jury convicted him of the injury offenses and hit-and-run but acquitted him of DWI, and the trial court ordered restitution. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the verdicts were merely inconsistent rather than legally contradictory because the serious-injury statute requires only that the defendant have been engaged in impaired driving, which the evidence supported independently of the DWI acquittal. On the restitution issue, the court found that the trial court erred by ordering payment without a definite stipulation from the defense, but concluded the error was not prejudicial because any collection would be limited to the actual amount owed. The case was remanded for consideration of remaining issues.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Whitaker
Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2010-10-08 · cited 23×
The case involved Douglas Whitaker, a convicted felon, who was charged with eleven counts of possessing firearms in 2006 after a 2004 amendment to N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 extended the ban on firearm possession to all felons in any location, including their homes. Whitaker argued that applying the law to him based on a prior felony conviction violated state and federal constitutional protections against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the amended statute is neither an ex post facto law nor a bill of attainder because it criminalizes the future act of possession after the law's effective date rather than punishing prior conduct or targeting a specific group without trial. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision upholding Whitaker's conviction.
gunscriminal lawcivil rights
State v. Bowditch
Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2010-10-08 · cited 95×
The case concerned three defendants convicted of taking indecent liberties with a child for offenses committed before North Carolina's 2006 satellite-based monitoring (SBM) statutes took effect. The defendants challenged the state's efforts to enroll them in the SBM program, arguing that retroactive application would violate federal and state constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws. The trial court agreed and dismissed the state's petitions, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the SBM program was not intended as criminal punishment and was not so punitive in purpose or effect as to negate its civil intent, applying the factors from Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez. Therefore, subjecting the defendants to SBM did not constitute unconstitutional retroactive punishment.
criminal lawcivil rights
State v. Ward
Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2010-06-17 · cited 82×
In State v. Ward, the defendant was charged with multiple drug-related offenses after law enforcement seized various pills during a controlled buy and subsequent searches of his person, vehicle, and residence. At trial, the State introduced expert testimony from a forensic chemist who identified certain pills as controlled substances such as hydrocodone and oxycodone based solely on visual comparison to reference materials, without performing chemical analysis. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that this visual identification methodology was not sufficiently reliable under Evidence Rule 702, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony. The court reasoned that the expert lacked specialized pharmaceutical training and that mere visual inspection amounted to speculation rather than a conclusive scientific method, distinguishing it from proper forensic analysis. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the convictions.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Tanner
Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2010-06-17 · cited 17×
In State v. Tanner, the defendant was acquitted by a jury of breaking or entering and larceny charges related to burglaries at businesses in Raleigh but was convicted of felonious possession of stolen goods after police recovered items matching those taken in the break-ins from his residence and backpack. The Court of Appeals vacated the felonious possession conviction, concluding that acquittal on the underlying charges precluded a felony-level stolen goods verdict. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that a defendant may be convicted of felonious possession of stolen goods if the evidence shows the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the goods were stolen under circumstances making the theft a felony, even without a conviction for the breaking or entering itself. The court explained that the elements of felonious possession focus on the defendant's knowledge of the goods' origin rather than requiring proof that the defendant committed or aided the underlying crime, unlike the requirements for felonious larceny.
criminal law
State Employees Ass'n of North Carolina, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of State Treasurer
Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2010-06-17 · cited 19×
The case involved a nonprofit organization's lawsuit against the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer under the Public Records Act to obtain documents related to the state's pension fund investments, including details on managers, fees, and performance. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim because the Public Records Act provides a cause of action for denied access without requiring proof of possession in the pleading, and judicial review is necessary rather than allowing the agency to determine compliance itself.
procedurecivil rights