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

The case involved a defendant's appeal from convictions on charges including sex offenses and attempted murder, challenging several trial court rulings. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial judge properly excluded a question to the victim about his sexual orientation under North Carolina's rape shield statute (G.S. 8-58.6) because it did not relate to specific instances of sexual behavior and the defendant failed to follow required procedures for seeking admission of such evidence. The court also found the evidence sufficient to submit the attempted murder charge to the jury, that denial of the motion for appropriate relief was not an abuse of discretion, and that any error in failing to instruct on lesser-included offenses was harmless due to concurrent sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Adcock v. Perry involved a dispute over the interpretation of W.T. Perry's will, specifically whether it granted his wife Annie S. Perry fee simple title to his property or only a life estate. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals, ruling that the will devised a life estate to the wife with a limited power to sell or mortgage for her personal expenses. The court's reasoning focused on ascertaining the testator's intent from the entire will, which included explicit limitations on the wife's use of the property and provisions for the remainder to pass to their children after her death, harmonizing all clauses rather than finding some repugnant or precatory.

propertyfamily law

The case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree murder who appealed on grounds that the prosecutor improperly argued to the jury that his post-arrest silence was evidence of guilt, in violation of state and federal constitutional rights, and that the trial court's jury instructions on presumptions of malice and unlawfulness were improper. The court held that the defendant waived objections to most of the prosecutor's statements by failing to object at trial, that the arguments were permissible for impeachment purposes based on conflicting testimony about whether the defendant responded to his girlfriend at arrest, and that the instructions did not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof because no evidence raised any issue of self-defense, duress, or other lawful excuse. The court affirmed the trial judgment, finding no prejudicial error in the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a juvenile delinquency proceeding in which the district court, after finding a juvenile incompetent to stand trial, ordered Guilford County and its Department of Social Services to create and staff a specialized foster home for the juvenile and others like him, and later held the department director in contempt for noncompliance. The North Carolina Supreme Court invoked its supervisory authority to review the county's challenge, despite the general rule barring counties from appealing juvenile orders. The Court held that the dispositional statutes (G.S. 7A-646 and 7A-647) authorize courts to design plans using existing community resources but do not empower judges to direct counties to acquire real property, equip facilities, or employ personnel at substantial public expense. Accordingly, the underlying order exceeded the trial court's authority, rendering the contempt adjudication invalid and requiring reversal.

family lawprocedurecriminal law

In State v. Turner, the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed appeals from a trial court order on motions to suppress eyewitness identification testimony in a criminal prosecution stemming from a home intrusion. The court held that the state's appeal was timely perfected because the prosecutor's certificate under G.S. 15A-979(c) could be filed before the record was certified to the appellate division, reversing the Court of Appeals' dismissal on procedural grounds. It further concluded that the trial judge erred in suppressing Aleasia Mungo's identification testimony but correctly denied suppression of Eddy Mungo's testimony, applying the totality-of-circumstances test for reliability under due process standards even where a show-up procedure was suggestive. The court treated the defendant's cross-appeal papers as a petition for writ of certiorari and affirmed the denial of suppression as to Eddy's testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a 1976 consent order requiring the plaintiff husband to pay the defendant wife $30,000 annually in alimony, which included a proviso that the order would not be modifiable under G.S. 50-16.9, could nonetheless be modified upon a showing of changed circumstances. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that consent alimony orders are generally modifiable as a matter of public policy, but an exception applies if the support payments and property division provisions constitute reciprocal consideration for each other. The court decided that the parol evidence rule did not bar testimony about the parties' negotiations to determine whether the provisions were separable, reversed the lower courts on that evidentiary point, and remanded for a new hearing with an expanded scope to address both modifiability and any changed circumstances.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerned a challenge to a North Carolina statute that authorized members of the General Assembly to serve on the Environmental Management Commission, an executive-branch body responsible for implementing environmental laws. The court held that the statute violated Section 6 of Article I of the state constitution, which requires that legislative, executive, and judicial powers remain forever separate and distinct. The core reasoning relied on the explicit text of the constitution, the historical emphasis on separation of powers in North Carolina's founding documents and instructions to delegates, and the principle that the legislature cannot both enact laws and retain control over their execution by appointing its own members to administrative bodies.

procedure

The case involved a dispute over a trial court's handling of a jury verdict awarding punitive damages, where the judge granted defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on grounds that the award was excessive. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision to order a new trial on all issues, holding that the trial court erred in using JNOV instead of addressing excessiveness under Rule 59 standards for a new trial, and that punitive damages should have been submitted to the jury. The court also ruled that defendants were entitled to pursue a cross-appeal after the plaintiff appealed, as they became potentially aggrieved parties facing reversal on the punitive damages issue. Core reasoning emphasized distinctions between Rules 50 and 59, the requirement that only aggrieved real parties in interest may appeal, and the need for a retrial to properly determine both compensatory and punitive damages.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a defendant convicted of homicide who appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding testimony about the victim's possible possession of a gun and about the defendant's intent, and by refusing to instruct the jury on perfect or imperfect self-defense. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the exclusions were not shown to be prejudicial because the record did not disclose what the excluded answers would have been. It further held that no self-defense instruction was warranted because, after prior altercations had ended, the defendant returned armed, approached the victim, struck him, and then shot him in the back as he turned, so the circumstances did not support a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary.

criminal law

In State v. Gerald, the defendant appealed his criminal conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by not holding a formal hearing under G.S. 15A-1242 after he stated during jury selection that he did not want a lawyer and wished to proceed without one. The court examined whether the defendant's statements amounted to an unequivocal assertion of his right to self-representation under Faretta v. California and related state precedents, concluding that they did not require the judge to advise him further or permit waiver of counsel at that stage. The opinion also addressed a secondary claim that the evidence of the defendant's drinking warranted a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense, finding the evidence insufficient to support such an instruction and that any mental state issues were properly addressed under the insanity defense. The court ultimately held that the trial was fair and free from prejudicial error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with death by vehicle and hit-and-run driving after an automobile accident that resulted in injury or death. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the death by vehicle conviction, holding that the trial court committed no prejudicial error in admitting evidence, denying dismissal motions, or instructing the jury, and that the superior court properly exercised jurisdiction over the misdemeanor because it arose from the same act or transaction as the related offense. In the hit-and-run case, however, the court reversed and ordered a new trial on the ground that the jury instructions failed to properly convey the required elements of knowledge and willful intent. The court agreed with the Court of Appeals on sufficiency of the evidence and other issues but found the challenged instructions deficient.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Marshall, the defendant appealed his first-degree murder conviction arising from a shooting at a service station following an argument, challenging various trial court rulings on venue, witness sequestration, individual voir dire, admission of victim photographs, denial of dismissal motions, jury instructions on premeditation and deliberation, and exclusion of psychologist testimony regarding his low IQ. The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the assignments of error from the guilt phase and affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the procedural and evidentiary rulings, sufficient evidence for the jury to determine premeditation and deliberation based on the sequence of events, and no basis to admit mental capacity evidence absent an insanity plea. The court concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudicial error in any of the challenged decisions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a breach of contract claim by Rental Towel & Uniform Service against Bynum International over a written rental agreement for towels and uniforms that included a 30-month term and liquidated damages for early termination. Plaintiff alleged the parties executed the agreement and that defendant breached it by stopping payments and returning the items after several months. Defendant contended it had signed only as a renewal of a prior contract with different terms, but it did not plead or prove the terms of any earlier agreement. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff after submitting certain issues to the jury; the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that an additional issue on renewal intent should have been submitted. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial judgment, holding that the submitted issues were adequate because defendant’s renewal theory was not supported by the pleadings and evidence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Irwin, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder under the felony-murder rule arising from a shooting during an attempted armed robbery of a drug store, as well as separate counts of attempted armed robbery and kidnapping. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the state's evidence was sufficient to support convictions for first-degree murder and attempted armed robbery, finding no error in the guilt phase of those charges. The court reversed the kidnapping conviction for lack of proof that the victim was moved a substantial distance and determined that submission of kidnapping as an aggravating circumstance at sentencing was erroneous and required a new sentencing hearing on the murder charge, leading to vacation of the death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure