Henry E. Frye

In Roberts v. Swain, plaintiff Douglas Roberts sued three UNC police officers for claims including assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after an unlawful arrest and detention, resulting in a jury award of $18,100 in damages. The defendants had made a pretrial offer of judgment for $50,000 under North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 68, which the plaintiff rejected. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that costs and attorney fees incurred after the offer but before final judgment must be included when calculating the "judgment finally obtained" to determine whether the plaintiff must bear post-offer costs. The court's reasoning relied on its prior definition in Poole v. Miller that the "judgment finally obtained" means the amount ultimately entered by the court, including applicable adjustments such as fees and costs awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, without limitation to pre-offer amounts.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved defendant William Davis, who pled guilty to the first-degree murders of his aunt Joyce Miller and cousin Caroline Miller in 1996. After a capital sentencing hearing, the jury found multiple aggravating circumstances for each murder along with numerous mitigating factors, recommending a death sentence for Joyce Miller's murder and life imprisonment for Caroline Miller's. The trial court imposed those sentences. On appeal, Davis raised 32 claims of error in the sentencing proceeding. The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected all arguments, held that the proceeding was free of prejudicial error, and concluded after proportionality review that the death sentence was not excessive or disproportionate given the circumstances, including the murder occurring in the victim's home with a weapon and in the presence of children.

criminal law

In Watson v. Dixon, a Duke University employee sued a coworker for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from workplace harassment, and sued the university for ratifying the conduct. The jury awarded the plaintiff modest compensatory damages plus $5,000 in punitive damages against the coworker and $500,000 in punitive damages against the university. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that an employer's punitive-damage liability under a ratification theory of vicarious liability is not capped by the amount assessed against the employee. The court reasoned that punitive damages serve distinct deterrent and punitive purposes that would be undermined if an employer's exposure were limited to the employee's financial resources.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case concerned a dispute between motel owners and the North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association over the handling of a windstorm and hail insurance claim following Hurricane Emily in 1993. The plaintiffs alleged that the insurer's delays, inadequate investigations, improper payment attempts involving a third-party mortgage interest, and low settlement offers amounted to unfair practices under state insurance law and constituted unfair or deceptive acts under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1. The trial court found a violation of § 75-1.1, trebled the jury's damages award, and granted attorneys' fees; the Court of Appeals reversed. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the insurer violated § 75-1.1 through acts prohibited by N.C.G.S. § 58-63-15(11) committed with sufficient frequency to indicate a general business practice, and that this violation stood independently of any per se violation. The court remanded for reinstatement of the amended judgment including trebled damages and fees.

business & regulatory

The case involved the interpretation of North Carolina General Statute § 14-27.7A(b), which defines a Class C felony for engaging in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with a person aged 13, 14, or 15 when the defendant is more than four but less than six years older, except if married to the person. Defendant, aged 20, was convicted of violating the statute after having intercourse with a 14-year-old victim, though he claimed consent. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that consent is not a defense to the charge. The court reasoned from the statute's plain language specifying only marriage as an exception, the legislative purpose of protecting children, and comparisons to other statutes in the same article that explicitly address consent or lack of consent.

criminal law

In Thompson v. Waters, homeowners sued Lee County for negligent building inspections that allegedly approved construction violating the state building code, resulting in structural defects shortly after completion, along with a separate claim against the contractor. The trial court granted the county's motion to dismiss under N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) based on the public duty doctrine, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed, ruling that the public duty doctrine does not apply to bar the negligent inspection claim against the county. The court reasoned that the doctrine had previously been limited primarily to law enforcement contexts and declined to extend it to municipal building inspectors, without needing to address the special relationship or special duty exceptions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a products liability action in which manufacturers and insurers sought recovery for contamination of pharmaceutical dyes caused by a leaking pressure vessel, leading to a settlement funded by multiple insurance carriers and a subsequent declaratory judgment action among the insurers to resolve coverage issues. The trial court reformed primary and excess policies to cover an additional insured, applied an injury-in-fact trigger for the date of property damage, found a single occurrence during the 1991-92 policy period, and determined priority among the policies; the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the reformation of the policies to provide coverage but reversed on the remaining issues, holding that the injury-in-fact trigger applied because the date of damage was known, that there was one occurrence triggering the 1991-92 policies, and that the United Capital claims-made policy was excess to the occurrence-based policies under their other-insurance clauses.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Gell, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on theories of premeditation and deliberation, lying in wait, and felony murder, as well as conspiracy to commit murder and armed robbery, for the shooting death of Allen Jenkins in his home during a robbery. The jury recommended a death sentence after finding the aggravating circumstance that the murder occurred during the commission of armed robbery. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, holding that the trial and sentencing proceeding were free of prejudicial error and that the penalty was not disproportionate in light of the premeditated and calculated nature of the crime, the victim's home as the location, and the defendant's use of young accomplices to gain entry.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a workers' compensation claim in which a paraplegic employee injured in 1980 sought an order from the Industrial Commission requiring his employer, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, to pay for preparation of a life care plan evaluating his current and future medical and rehabilitative needs under N.C.G.S. § 97-25. The full Commission found the plan necessary and ordered the employer to pay, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was no competent evidence that the plan constituted a required medical or rehabilitative service. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, concluding that the record contained competent evidence, including testimony from a rehabilitation expert, to support the Commission's factual findings. The Court emphasized that under N.C.G.S. § 97-86, the Commission's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal when supported by any competent evidence, and it is not the role of appellate courts to reweigh the evidence.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and multiple assaults with a deadly weapon after entering a house in Johnston County and killing or wounding several people in 1995. The North Carolina Supreme Court granted the defendant a new trial on all counts. The court held that the trial judge erred by limiting defense counsel to one opening and one closing argument rather than permitting the additional arguments allowed in capital cases under N.C.G.S. § 7A-97. It also held that the jury instructions on acting in concert for specific-intent crimes were incorrect because they failed to require the jury to find that the defendant himself possessed malice and premeditated intent to kill, applying the rule from State v. Blankenship that was in effect at the time of the offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Parker, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder of two victims, one under felony murder and the other under both felony murder and premeditation and deliberation, along with numerous related charges including burglary, arson, and larceny. The jury recommended and the trial court imposed death sentences for each murder, with prison terms for the other convictions. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court found no prejudicial error in the trial or sentencing proceeding. The court upheld the convictions and sentences after determining that the death penalties were not disproportionate, noting factors such as the premeditated nature of one killing, the close-range shooting, lack of remorse, and the murders occurring in the victims' homes.

criminal law

In Garner v. Rentenbach Constructors Inc., an at-will employee sued his employer after being fired based on a positive drug test result from a laboratory that lacked the accreditation required by North Carolina's Controlled Substance Examination Regulation. The employee argued that the employer's statutory violation rendered the discharge wrongful under the public-policy exception to at-will employment. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld summary judgment for the employer. The court reasoned that while the employer violated the regulatory statute and could face civil penalties, there was no evidence the termination itself was for an unlawful purpose or against public policy, and an employer may permissibly discharge an at-will employee for suspected drug use.

labor & employment

The case concerned whether defendants' State Farm automobile insurance policy, renewed after 1991 statutory amendments, provided underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage when the named insured had executed selection/rejection forms. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the policy included UIM coverage because there was no valid rejection of it. The core reasoning was that the 1991 amendments to N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) created new options for selecting UIM limits between statutory minimums and $1 million, and the forms furnished by the insurer at renewal did not comply with the statute's requirements for offering those options or obtaining a valid rejection.

business & regulatory

This case concerned whether the Governor of North Carolina has the authority to substantively amend the State Medical Facilities Plan (SMFP) when approving it, arising from a dispute between two hospitals over the need determination for an open-heart surgery program in Catawba County. The court held that the Governor does possess this power, reversing the superior court's decision that limited the Governor to approving or rejecting the plan as a whole. The reasoning was that the statutory scheme grants the Governor final authority over the plan, and interpreting 'approval' to include amendments prevents potential stalemates and aligns with similar regulatory approval processes in other contexts, such as insurance rate filings.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved defendant Robert McNeill, who was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder (on theories of premeditation and deliberation and felony murder), conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and robbery with a firearm, arising from the September 1993 shooting deaths of two Food Lion employees during a store robbery in Raleigh. The jury recommended and the trial court imposed death sentences for each murder, along with prison terms for the other offenses. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences in full, holding that the trial and capital sentencing proceeding were free of prejudicial error. The court further determined that the death sentences were not disproportionate after reviewing the circumstances of the crimes—including the defendant's procurement and use of the murder weapon to eliminate witnesses—and comparing them to prior cases where death was upheld for multiple killings or murders committed to avoid arrest.

criminal law

In State v. LaPlanche, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for one victim and second-degree murder for the other after shooting both at close range, with the jury imposing life imprisonment for the first-degree conviction and a consecutive 49-year sentence for the second-degree conviction. On appeal, defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that the appeal was frivolous after reviewing the record, while identifying five potential issues including alleged discovery violations, a witness testifying under a false name, insufficient evidence of premeditation, improper admission of victim photographs, and disproportionate consecutive sentencing. The North Carolina Supreme Court examined each assignment of error in detail, finding no basis for sanctions on discovery, no material falsehood or knowledge by the prosecution regarding the witness's name, sufficient evidence of premeditation from the circumstances, no abuse of discretion in admitting the photographs, and proper authority for consecutive sentences without constitutional violation. The court concluded after full review of the record and transcript that the appeal was wholly frivolous and affirmed the convictions and sentences without error.

criminal law

In State v. Locklear, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder after shooting his stepfather multiple times following a fight outside their mobile home in Robeson County, North Carolina. The jury found the sole aggravating circumstance of a prior felony conviction involving violence to the person, accepted no mitigating circumstances, and recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and capital sentence, holding that the trial and sentencing proceeding were free of prejudicial error and that the death penalty was not disproportionate to similar cases.

criminal law

In State v. Helms, the defendant appealed his conviction for driving while impaired under N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1, challenging the admission of horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test results without a foundation showing the test's scientific reliability. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the HGN test qualifies as a scientific test requiring proper foundation testimony regarding the officer's techniques and qualifications, which was lacking here, making the evidence inadmissible. The Court reversed on the issue of harmless error, however, holding that the admission was prejudicial because juries tend to give heightened credence to scientific evidence and a reasonable possibility existed that the outcome would have differed without it. The case was remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over sentencing in State v. Wall, where the defendant entered a plea agreement for a 25-year sentence on burglary and related charges, with the understanding from all parties that it would run concurrently with a prior activated sentence from 1989. The Department of Correction instead treated the new sentence as consecutive under N.C.G.S. § 14-52, which mandates that burglary sentences run consecutively to any other sentence being served. The superior court granted the defendant's motion for appropriate relief and ordered the sentences to run concurrently, but the North Carolina Supreme Court vacated that order. The Court held that the statute's plain language required consecutive service and could not be overridden by the plea agreement or court order. The defendant was permitted to withdraw the guilty plea and either go to trial or negotiate a new agreement that complies with the law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim where an employee suffered severe work-related injuries, the employer denied liability but was ordered by the Industrial Commission to pay all reasonable medical expenses, and the employer reimbursed Medicaid for amounts it had paid providers but refused to cover the difference up to the full Commission fee schedule amounts. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the employer and carrier must pay medical providers the full authorized amounts under the Act rather than just reimbursing Medicaid, reversing the Court of Appeals. The Court reasoned that the Commission has continuing jurisdiction to enforce its awards and set medical fees under state statutes, that the Act requires payment of reasonable expenses without reduction for Medicaid, and that federal Medicaid law does not preempt or relieve employers of these state obligations. It rejected arguments that jurisdiction was lacking or that dual compliance was impossible.

labor & employmenthealthcarefederal power