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

The case involved defendant Williams' convictions for first-degree murder (on theories of felony murder based on burglary with explosives and premeditation and deliberation), burglary with explosives, and attempted safecracking at a company premises, for which he received a death sentence. On initial appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted a new trial, finding that the trial court's reasonable doubt jury instruction violated due process under then-controlling precedent. After the U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of Victor v. Nebraska, which upheld similar instructions, the court held that the instruction was proper, reaffirmed its prior rulings on other issues such as sufficiency of evidence and admissibility of evidence, and affirmed the convictions and death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a North Carolina corporation's challenge to the state's intangibles tax on corporate stock ownership under N.C.G.S. § 105-203, which reduced the tax based on the proportion of the issuing corporation's business conducted and income taxed in North Carolina. The Superior Court upheld the tax against claims that it violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against stock in out-of-state corporations, but the Court of Appeals reversed on constitutional grounds while severing the deduction provision and denying any refund. The Supreme Court reviewed the scheme's interaction with corporate income taxes, apportionment formulas, and precedents such as Darnell v. Indiana to assess whether the tax imposed unequal burdens on interstate commerce.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In State v. Abraham, defendants Abraham and Cureton were jointly tried and convicted of first-degree murder under a felony murder theory for the shooting death of Tariano Gaddy, along with two counts each of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill arising from the same incident. The trial court imposed life sentences on the murder convictions and a consecutive three-year term on one assault count per defendant, while arresting judgment on the second assault count. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court arrested judgment on defendant Abraham’s assault conviction involving victim Joice Hardin due to a fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence presented, and noted a similar defect in one of defendant Cureton’s assault convictions that had already been addressed at sentencing; the court otherwise found the trial free of prejudicial error, including on challenges to jury instructions regarding flight and the sufficiency of the evidence. The decision rested on established principles governing indictments, evidentiary sufficiency, and the absence of reversible instructional error in a capital trial that resulted in life sentences rather than death.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Harris, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder (on felony murder and lying-in-wait theories), armed robbery, conspiracy to commit murder, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery after evidence showed he and an accomplice ambushed and fatally shot a convenience store owner to steal a cash box containing thousands of dollars from her home. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences including life imprisonment for the murder. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed challenges to evidentiary rulings (including the admissibility of the defendant's statements and hearsay issues), the exclusion of certain defense evidence, and the propriety of the prosecutor's closing arguments. The court held that the trial was free from prejudicial error and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Henry Watson's conviction for first-degree murder of Ronald Bilbrey on a theory of premeditation and deliberation after a shooting during an argument at a mobile home park over money owed, personal accusations, and intoxication. Watson received a life sentence, and on appeal he raised eight assignments of error related to trial evidence, jury instructions, and communications between the court and jury via the bailiff. The court examined the procedural claims, including whether the bailiff's actions violated confrontation rights or required a court reporter, and determined that no prejudicial error occurred because the communications did not concern guilt or innocence and the jury resolved any questions internally.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Brinson, the defendant was indicted and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury after attacking his cellmate at the Nash County Jail, slamming his head against bars and the floor and causing a broken neck and paralysis. The trial court allowed the State to amend the indictment on the day of trial to rephrase the description of the deadly weapon and found an aggravating sentencing factor based on the severity of the victim's injuries, resulting in an eight-year prison sentence. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the amendment was permissible because it did not substantially alter the charged offense and that the aggravating factor was properly applied since the permanent injuries exceeded the serious injury element required for conviction. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals decision that had vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for defendant Price in North Carolina, which has been remanded multiple times by the U.S. Supreme Court. The latest remand required consideration of Simmons v. South Carolina, which holds that due process requires a jury instruction on parole ineligibility when the prosecution argues the defendant's future dangerousness in a capital sentencing proceeding. The court reviewed the trial record, including the prosecution's arguments about dangerousness, the trial court's restrictions on defense arguments regarding parole or consecutive life sentences, and the denial of a related mitigating circumstance. It determined that the defendant had not properly requested or been entitled to the specific Simmons instruction under state law and that prior rulings on these issues remained valid. The court therefore affirmed the conviction and death sentence without ordering a new sentencing hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a homeowner's negligence and breach of warranty claims against a builder for alleged defects in a townhouse that caused water leaks and structural damage more than six years after purchase. The trial court dismissed the claims under North Carolina's six-year real property improvement statute of repose, N.C.G.S. § 1-50(5), but the Court of Appeals reversed, applying a different limitations period. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the claim was time-barred because the builder was not in possession or control of the property when the damage occurred, so the statutory exclusion for such possessors did not apply and the repose period ran from the date of substantial completion. The court reasoned that a plaintiff cannot suffer compensable injury until acquiring title, at which point the builder no longer controlled the property, and that the statute's purpose of imposing ongoing duties applies only to those remaining in possession.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Webster, the defendant was arrested in November 1989 for murdering her husband, indicted for first-degree murder (later reduced to second-degree), and convicted after a trial in April 1991, resulting in a fifteen-year sentence. The central issue was whether the roughly seventeen-month delay between arrest and trial violated her right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution. Applying the four-factor test from Barker v. Wingo—length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice—the court found the delay long enough to trigger scrutiny but attributed much of it to the parties' pretrial motions and scheduling rather than deliberate state inaction. The defendant did not demand a speedy trial until January 1991, and while the delay caused some personal and financial strain, it did not impair her defense or involve lengthy pretrial incarceration. Balancing these factors, the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that no constitutional violation occurred.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a professional malpractice claim against an attorney for alleged negligence in drafting a will was barred by the four-year statute of repose in N.C.G.S. § 1-15(c). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant attorney failed to use proper language in a 1978 will to create only a life estate for the testator's widow with remainder to the plaintiffs, and they filed suit in 1991 after learning of the issue following the testator's 1988 death. The court held that the claim was barred because the attorney's last act giving rise to the cause of action was his supervision of the will's execution in 1978, more than four years before the complaint was filed. It reasoned that the attorney had no continuing duty to correct the will after that time, as the scope of the professional obligation was defined by the parties' contractual arrangement and concluded upon execution of the will.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved the 1992 trial of a fifteen-year-old defendant for the 1982 first-degree murders and kidnappings of a man and his two young sons, committed with the defendant's stepfather during a robbery attempt. The jury convicted the defendant of both murders on theories of premeditation and deliberation as well as felony murder, plus the two kidnapping counts, resulting in consecutive life sentences. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court's jury instruction on acting in concert was erroneous as applied to the premeditation-and-deliberation theory, so those verdicts were vacated, but the felony-murder verdicts were unaffected and the life sentences stand; the kidnapping convictions were arrested because they merged into the felony-murder convictions as the underlying felonies.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Terry, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder under the felony-murder rule, second-degree murder, and assault with a deadly weapon after shooting three men during a fight outside a store, killing two and wounding one; he claimed self-defense and defense of others. The trial court imposed life sentences for the murders and arrested judgment on the assault conviction. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court found no error in the guilt phase determinations but held that the trial court improperly applied a non-statutory aggravating factor of "course of conduct" in sentencing for the second-degree murder, as this relied on contemporaneous convictions of joined offenses in violation of precedents under the Fair Sentencing Act such as State v. Westmoreland. The court therefore remanded the second-degree murder case for resentencing without that aggravating factor.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the second appeal of a death sentence imposed on defendant Harold Vernard Quick following his convictions for first-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon in North Carolina state court. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the statutory mitigating circumstance under N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(f)(1) regarding the defendant's lack of significant prior criminal history, despite evidence of some prior illegal drug use and convictions for larceny, receiving stolen goods, and forgery. The court reasoned that this mitigating factor must be submitted whenever the evidence could rationally support a jury finding in its favor, without regard to the preferences of the parties, and that the trial court lacked discretion to withhold it. The court also addressed the improper admission of evidence regarding the defendant's pretrial silence but focused its reversal on the mitigating circumstance issue. It vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Camacho, the defendant was tried and convicted of first-degree murder on the theory of lying in wait after evidence showed he hid in the victim's hotel room closet and struck her repeatedly with a hammer, leading to a death sentence. The North Carolina Supreme Court granted a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser offenses of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The court reasoned that conflicting evidence existed on whether the defendant was lying in wait, but all evidence indicated some criminal culpability, so the jury should have been allowed to consider the lesser degrees rather than facing an all-or-nothing choice between first-degree murder and acquittal. This requirement stems from constitutional principles to prevent improper convictions when doubt exists on elements of the greater offense.

criminal law