James G. Exum

In State v. Carter, the defendant was tried in superior court for first-degree murder and attempted second-degree rape after the victim, Amelia Lewis, was found strangled and beaten in an alley; he elected to represent himself with standby counsel and was convicted on both charges following a second trial. The jury recommended and the court imposed a death sentence for the murder conviction along with a ten-year prison term for the attempted rape. On appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court, the defendant raised multiple assignments of error concerning both the guilt-innocence and sentencing phases. The court reviewed the record and concluded that the trial was free from prejudicial error and that the death sentence was not disproportionate to the crime.

criminal lawprocedure

Former law enforcement officers sued the City of High Point for breach of contract and related constitutional claims after the city reduced their early retirement separation allowances, which had initially been calculated to include longevity pay, overtime, and accrued vacation based on representations by a city assistant manager. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' summary judgment for the plaintiffs, concluding that the statutes governing separation allowances did not authorize inclusion of those compensation elements and that the city's agent therefore acted ultra vires in promising the higher amounts. The court reasoned that municipalities may exercise only powers expressly granted by the legislature or necessarily implied therefrom, and that estoppel could not bar the ultra vires defense because the action involved a total lack of authority rather than an improper exercise of existing power. As a result, no enforceable contract existed, and the plaintiffs' claims for unconstitutional impairment of contract, taking, and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 also failed.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case arose from a 1986 attempt by a Wachovia Bank agent to repossess a car owned by plaintiff Hallie Holloway, during which an altercation occurred involving Hallie, her mother, her infant son, and her niece, leading to claims of assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of North Carolina's Debt Collection Act. The trial court dismissed several claims on statute of limitations grounds, granted summary judgment on the emotional distress claims for all plaintiffs, and directed a verdict on the assault and battery claims at trial, while a jury awarded Hallie Holloway $1,000 on her Debt Collection Act claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of certain assault and battery claims for the minor plaintiffs and allowed punitive damages issues to be submitted on retrial, but affirmed summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the punitive damages and emotional distress rulings, focusing on whether the complaint's allegations and trial evidence supported those claims and whether procedural defaults barred recovery of punitive damages. The court's analysis centered on the sufficiency of evidence for severe emotional distress and the applicability of procedural rules to damages requests in tort and statutory claims arising from debt collection activities.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedureproperty

In this case, the defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of first-degree murder for stabbing his estranged wife at their restaurant and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The court examined whether the evidence supported a finding of premeditation and deliberation, including prior arguments and threats by the defendant, the circumstances of the killing after an argument in which the victim called him a homosexual, and the defendant's post-murder actions such as taking money to stage a robbery and creating a false alibi. The court determined there was substantial evidence that the defendant acted in a cool state of blood rather than under sudden provocation, overruled the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and concluded the trial was free of prejudicial error.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Rouse, who was indicted and tried for the first-degree murder, armed robbery, and attempted first-degree rape of convenience store clerk Hazel Colleen Broadway in Asheboro, North Carolina. A jury convicted him on all counts, including first-degree murder under both premeditation and felony murder theories, and recommended the death penalty, which the trial court imposed along with prison terms for the other offenses. The court's opinion detailed the crime scene evidence, forensic links such as blood and hair matching the victim to the defendant, and the defendant's mental health history including low IQ and organic personality disorder, while addressing issues like jury selection challenges related to death penalty views and potential racial bias. It affirmed the convictions and death sentence after reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence and trial procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute over a leased Volvo automobile that plaintiff Curtis Taylor claimed did not conform to its express warranty due to persistent issues with shimmy and clicking noises despite multiple repair attempts. The trial court found in favor of Taylor under North Carolina's New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act, awarding treble damages and attorney fees, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the findings regarding the warranty's existence, the vehicle's nonconformity, and the manufacturer's unreasonable refusal to comply, but reversed on the damages calculation, holding that the reasonable allowance for the car's use must be deducted from the damages before trebling them.

business & regulatory