David M. Britt

In State v. Dobbins, the defendant appealed his convictions for crimes including breaking and entering and assault against Ms. Bowlin, challenging the trial court's denial of a motion for change of venue due to pretrial publicity, denial of a motion to suppress identification evidence, admission of evidence from a search warrant whose return was not sworn, and admission of two photographs of the victim's injuries. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding there was no error in any of the rulings. The court reasoned that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from publicity or that he exhausted peremptory challenges, that the identification was of independent origin based on the victim's observations, that any statutory violation in the warrant return was technical and not substantial, and that the relevant photographs were not excessive in number.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the termination of Lillie Ruth Moore's parental rights over her minor children, Connie Marie Moore and Donnie Lee Moore, after they had been placed in foster care, on grounds including neglect, willful failure to make progress in correcting conditions leading to removal, and failure to pay a reasonable portion of care costs under North Carolina statutes. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the mother's appeal was untimely but reached the merits via certiorari, upholding the termination order and rejecting challenges that the termination statutes were unconstitutionally vague or violated due process. The court reasoned that the statutes provided adequate notice of prohibited conduct, incorporated definitions of neglect from related provisions, and had been upheld in prior cases, with at least two independent statutory grounds supporting the judgment. A dissent argued that procedural protections were inadequate and that findings on adoptability and recent neglect were required.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge to the North Carolina Department of Human Resources' denial of Medicaid benefits to plaintiff Lackey on the grounds that he was not disabled under the applicable federal standards. The court applied the Administrative Procedure Act's review provisions and determined that the agency's decision was affected by errors of law and unsupported by substantial evidence. It held that federal Social Security Act definitions of disability, incorporated into state law, require evaluation based on medical evidence of inability to engage in substantial gainful activity for at least 12 months, and that the plaintiff's physicians' reports with clinical findings established a prima facie case of total disability that the agency failed to rebut. The court modified some aspects of the Court of Appeals' analysis regarding the weight of certain evidence but ultimately affirmed its reversal of the denial and ordered approval of the claim.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

In State v. Vickers, the defendant appealed his conviction for common law arson, arguing that his appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate or raise an insanity defense, and that his incriminating statements to police should have been suppressed for lack of a valid Miranda waiver. The North Carolina Supreme Court overruled both assignments of error and affirmed the conviction. The court held that counsel's assistance met the required standard of competence because the mental health evaluation showed no thought disorder or basis for an insanity defense, and the choice not to pursue it could reasonably have been a tactical decision to avoid exposing the defendant's criminal history. The court further ruled that the dwelling was inhabited within the meaning of arson law even though the occupant was temporarily absent, and that the statements were properly admitted.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a defendant's post-conviction motion for appropriate relief challenging his guilty plea to armed robbery charges, on the grounds that the plea was unintelligent, unknowing, involuntary, and the product of ineffective assistance of counsel. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were supported by evidence such as attorney testimony and the defendant's own habeas corpus application, and that those findings in turn supported the conclusions of law upholding the plea. The court applied the standard of review requiring deference to findings supported by evidence even when conflicting, and determined that the defendant's attorney had properly advised him of his rights and options before the plea. A dissent argued that the attorney's advice was based on an erroneous legal assessment of the defendant's version of events, rendering the plea invalid.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of second-degree murder after a fatal stabbing during a street fight, where he raised a self-defense claim. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admission of testimony and a photograph depicting blood at the scene, the trial court's refusal to permit cross-examination of a witness about the victim's criminal record and violent reputation, the sufficiency of evidence to support a second-degree murder charge rather than voluntary manslaughter, and certain aspects of the jury instructions on self-defense. The court held that the photograph and related evidence were relevant to illustrate the scene of the offense. It further ruled that evidence of the victim's character was inadmissible because the defendant had no prior knowledge of him, that the state's evidence supported submission of second-degree murder to the jury, and that the jury instructions properly distinguished between perfect and imperfect self-defense without the errors identified in prior precedent. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no prejudicial error.

criminal lawprocedure