Edward Thomas Brady

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case concerned whether a medical malpractice complaint filed without the expert certification required by North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 9(j) could be amended after the statute of limitations expired to add that certification. The plaintiff filed the original complaint near the end of the two-year limitations period for wrongful death, obtained a 120-day extension, and later amended the complaint with counsel to include the certification, but the trial court dismissed the claims for failure to comply with Rule 9(j). The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed that decision and reinstated the dismissal. The court held that Thigpen v. Ngo controlled, requiring expert review of the medical care before the original complaint is filed to avoid perverting the purpose of Rule 9(j).

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In State v. Bunch, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule and robbery with a dangerous weapon following a home invasion in which one victim was killed by shotgun. The trial court gave incomplete jury instructions on the elements of felony murder, omitting full explanations of the killing and proximate cause requirements outside the premeditated murder instructions. On appeal, the defendant argued this violated his state constitutional right to a jury trial under Article I, Section 24, and that the error should be treated as structural and reversible per se. The North Carolina Supreme Court applied harmless error analysis from Neder v. United States, determined the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the full charge and evidence presented, and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The Court rejected structural error treatment for such instructional omissions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Eugene Johnny Williams, who was convicted of the first-degree murders of Nicholas Gillard and Cedric Leavy after evidence showed he lured the victims to his home over an unpaid debt from a prior motorcycle transaction, shot them at close range with a nine-millimeter firearm, and attempted to burn and conceal the bodies. Following convictions, the trial court declared a mistrial solely on the penalty phase; a new jury later recommended death sentences for both murders. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court found no error in the convictions or sentences, concluding after statutory proportionality review that the death penalties were appropriate in light of the premeditation and deliberation findings and the fact of two victims.

criminal law

The case concerned a challenge by Wake County voters and attorneys to a North Carolina statute that created four superior court districts with significantly unequal populations per judge, giving residents in some districts far less voting power than others when electing judges. The trial court found the districting violated the state Equal Protection Clause, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that population proportionality is not required for judicial elections. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, ruling that the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution applies to the General Assembly's creation of judicial districts and requires some degree of population proportionality. The court reasoned that while federal precedent does not extend one-person-one-vote principles to judicial elections, the state constitution independently demands equal treatment of similarly situated voters in this context, and remanded for further proceedings.

electionscivil rights

This case concerned an as-applied constitutional challenge by Barney Britt to a 2004 amendment of N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1, which extended a lifetime ban on firearm possession to all convicted felons, including in their homes or businesses. Britt had pleaded guilty in 1979 to a nonviolent drug felony, completed his sentence and probation, had his civil rights including firearm possession restored by 1987, and had no further criminal record or evidence of dangerousness in the ensuing decades. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the statute as amended was unconstitutional as applied to Britt under Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina Constitution. The court reasoned that while the legislature may regulate the right to keep and bear arms, any such regulation must be reasonable and bear a fair relation to preserving public peace and safety; the permanent, blanket prohibition here failed that test given Britt's specific history and circumstances.

gunscriminal lawcivil rights

This case involved John Weskett Powers seeking review of a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision in a dispute against George Tatum, Commissioner of the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles. Powers filed a petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 and a separate petition for a writ of supersedeas to stay the judgment. The Supreme Court of North Carolina denied both petitions by order entered in conference on August 27, 2009, and certified the denials to the Court of Appeals.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved convicted sex offender Patricia Dawn Abshire, who was charged with failing to report a change of address under North Carolina's sex offender registration program after evidence suggested she had been staying at her father's home for several weeks instead of her registered address. The trial court denied her motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, and the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The court concluded the State met its burden because witness testimony showed Abshire had been absent from her listed residence for two to three weeks, her father confirmed she had stayed with him for five to six weeks, and she had represented her address as her father's in a court filing. The decision emphasized viewing all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State when assessing the motion to dismiss.

criminal law

The case concerned whether statements made by defendant Mickey Vonrice Rollins to his wife in the public visiting areas of North Carolina correctional facilities were protected by the marital communications privilege under N.C.G.S. § 8-57(c) and thus inadmissible in his trial for murder and related charges. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the statements, which his wife had reported and recorded at the request of law enforcement after he confessed to killing an elderly woman. The Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the privilege does not apply. The court reasoned that the privilege protects only confidential communications for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and no such expectation exists in the public visiting areas of state prisons. The court therefore upheld the denial of the suppression motion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between the North Carolina Department of Correction and the North Carolina Medical Board over a 2007 Position Statement issued by the Board. The statement declared that physician participation in executions, beyond certifying death or mere presence, constituted unethical conduct subject to disciplinary action under state law, which led physicians to decline involvement and halted executions. The Department of Correction sued for injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing the statement conflicted with N.C.G.S. § 15-190, which requires a physician to be present at executions. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a justiciable controversy existed and was ripe for review, that the trial court had not made improper findings, and that the Position Statement was inconsistent with the statute's manifest intent. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's order in favor of the Department of Correction.

criminal lawhealthcare

The case involved Ryan Garcell, who in 2004 robbed and strangled to death 71-year-old Margaret Hutchins Bennick in her home using a firearm, after planning the crime with his pregnant girlfriend and forcing three others to participate. A Rutherford County jury convicted him of first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, and recommended a death sentence for the murder, with consecutive prison terms for the other offenses. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the record, procedural history, factual background, and various assignments of error, concluding there was no error in the convictions or sentences and affirming the trial court's judgments.

criminal law

The case concerned whether adjacent or nearby property owners had standing to challenge a Raleigh Board of Adjustment decision granting a special use permit for an adult establishment. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the petitioners possessed standing to appeal the permit approval. The court reasoned that the state constitution provides a remedy for injury to property interests, and longstanding precedent allows owners of adjoining land to challenge an unlawful use when they demonstrate special damages, such as increased traffic, runoff, or safety issues, without needing to prove actual diminution in property values. The matter was remanded for consideration of the remaining issues.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Smith, defendant Joshua David Smith was tried and convicted of first-degree sexual offense and indecent liberties with a child after a jury acquitted him of first-degree rape; the trial court sentenced him to 196 to 245 months in prison. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the first-degree sexual offense conviction could not stand under the corpus delicti rule because there was insufficient independent evidence to corroborate the defendant's extrajudicial confession regarding the required sexual act element. The Court further held that the trial court's jury instructions on the indecent liberties charge did not constitute plain error, as the evidence allowed the jury to find that the defendant's acts during either of two visits satisfied the offense elements. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to address the defendant's remaining assignments of error related to the indecent liberties conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Theodore Jerry Williams, who was charged with felony assault on a government official after an alleged incident at the Union County Jail while in custody. Williams moved to dismiss the charge under N.C.G.S. § 15A-954(a)(4), citing the State's destruction of a poster from the district attorney's office that depicted him with before-and-after photographs mocking his civil rights lawsuits, which he argued was material exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland. At a pretrial hearing, the State admitted the poster's existence, possession, and destruction, and that it could not be produced for trial. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the destruction constituted a flagrant violation of the defendant's constitutional rights that irreparably prejudiced his defense preparation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns disciplinary proceedings against North Carolina District Court Judge Mark H. Badgett stemming from his handling of a 2005 civil domestic violence protective order hearing in Surry County. In that proceeding, the judge denied a continuance, required the defendant to proceed without counsel, awarded spousal support without supporting evidence or findings, and ordered the seizure of the defendant's vehicle and keys. The Judicial Standards Commission recommended censure, but the North Carolina Supreme Court instead censured and removed the judge from office, citing his willful misconduct, violations of judicial canons, and a broader pattern of ethical failures including a prior censure for conflicts of interest and false statements from the bench.

family lawprocedure