Burley B. Mitchell

This case involved a will contest in which a jury found that the testator lacked capacity and that the 1995 will was procured by undue influence, invalidating it in favor of an earlier will. The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the capacity issue and conditionally granted a new trial on undue influence under Rule 59(a)(7), finding the verdict against the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conditional new trial, and the Supreme Court granted review solely on the standard for appellate review of such orders. The Court held that the same abuse-of-discretion standard applies whether a trial court grants or denies a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence, and it affirmed because the record did not show an abuse of discretion by the trial court in weighing the conflicting evidence on undue influence.

procedureproperty

The case involved a defendant indicted for marijuana trafficking and conspiracy after a traffic stop on Interstate 85 led to discovery of the drug in his vehicle. He moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop beyond issuing a warning ticket, but the trial court denied the motion, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court upheld the rulings. The court found the stop justified by speeding and following too closely, and the extension supported by the totality of circumstances including the defendant's extreme nervousness, inconsistent statements about vehicle ownership and travel, and conflicting accounts from the drivers. It further held that the 15-20 minute wait for a drug-sniffing dog was reasonable given the officers' diligence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Dr. Ron Virmani against Presbyterian Health Services Corp. challenging the suspension of his medical staff privileges after a peer review evaluation found concerns about his competence. The trial court closed certain hearings and sealed documents containing confidential medical peer review materials under N.C.G.S. § 131E-95. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals decision, holding that the trial court properly closed the hearings and sealed most peer review records and related materials because the statutory interest in confidentiality outweighed any public access rights, but that exhibits attached to the complaint at filing should remain unsealed and available to the public.

free speechhealthcareprocedure

In State v. Basden, a capital defendant convicted of murder sought post-conviction discovery under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1415(f) after his motion for appropriate relief was initially denied by the trial court before the statute's effective date of June 21, 1996. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of the discovery motion. The court held that the statute's discovery provisions apply retroactively in capital cases to motions for appropriate relief that were filed before June 21, 1996, and were still pending on that date. The core reasoning was that the defendant's motion to vacate the initial denial, combined with the trial court's extension of time for response, effectively kept the motion for appropriate relief pending until its final denial after the effective date, entitling the defendant to discovery.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether N.C.G.S. § 15A-1415(f), a 1996 statute providing for post-conviction discovery of complete files in capital cases, applied retroactively to defendant Harvey Lee Green. Green had pled guilty to two first-degree murders in 1984, received death sentences after multiple proceedings and appeals, and had his motion for appropriate relief denied by the trial court on May 1, 1996, before the statute took effect on June 21, 1996. After the denial, Green sought discovery under the new provision by requesting the State’s files and asking the trial court to reconsider, but the prosecutor refused and the court did not grant relief. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the statute does not apply retroactively to defendants whose post-conviction motions were already denied prior to its effective date. The core reasoning was that the statute’s text and purpose of expediting the post-conviction process, together with principles of finality in criminal judgments, precluded reopening long-resolved matters through later discovery requests.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the conviction of Walic Christopher Thomas for first-degree murder (on theories of both premeditation and deliberation and felony murder), first-degree burglary, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and first-degree kidnapping after evidence showed he entered the victim's home, bound and gagged him, robbed him, and stabbed him to death before stealing property including the victim's car. The jury recommended a death sentence for the murder, which the trial court imposed along with consecutive prison terms for the other offenses. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and the death sentence, holding that the evidence supported the jury's findings, the aggravating circumstances (including a prior violent felony) and the brutal nature of the home invasion murder distinguished it from disproportionate cases, and the trial was free of prejudicial error.

criminal law