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

The case arose from a pro se plaintiff's medical negligence claims against physicians and a clinic for treatment of menorrhagia that allegedly caused her to develop diabetes-related complications. Defendants served requests for admissions, including that their care met applicable standards, which plaintiff did not answer; at a hearing she denied receiving them but made no motion to withdraw or amend any resulting admissions. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that under N.C. Rule of Civil Procedure 36 the matters were deemed admitted and conclusively established, so the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on that ground and reversed the Court of Appeals' affirmance of that order.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In State v. Rivera, the defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death after evidence showed he shot the victims during a robbery tied to a drug debt. The trial court excluded testimony from a witness about a conversation in which one codefendant allegedly described a plan to frame the defendant for the murders, ruling it inadmissible hearsay. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the testimony was admissible under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule because it reflected the declarant's then-existing intent to engage in future conduct. The court therefore reversed the convictions and granted a new trial, while also clarifying jury instructions on acting in concert for specific-intent crimes under precedent applicable to the case. The decision focused on the evidentiary error as the basis for relief.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Williams, the defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, first-degree rape, burglaries, and assaults after breaking into two homes in the early morning, assaulting residents including an 83-year-old woman whom he raped and beat to death. He pled guilty to all charges, including premeditated and felony murder, and after a capital sentencing proceeding the jury recommended death, which the trial court imposed along with consecutive prison terms for the other offenses. On appeal the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed multiple assignments of error, including challenges to the admission of prior criminal activity for mitigating-circumstance purposes and compliance with appellate briefing rules, and affirmed the convictions and death sentence after concluding that the penalty was proportionate given the premeditated and deliberate nature of the killing, the victim's age and vulnerability, and the brutality of the attack in her home.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a dispute between a farming family and their lender over a forbearance agreement and foreclosure attempts, which led to claims for breach of contract and unfair or deceptive practices among others. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to compel the plaintiffs to elect between pursuing their contract or unfair practices claims for damages, after which the plaintiffs abandoned the contract claim, lost on the remaining claim, and appealed the final judgment. The Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction to review the election order because the notice of appeal referenced only the final judgment and not the interlocutory election ruling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under N.C.G.S. § 1-278 the interlocutory order was reviewable on appeal from the final judgment since it involved the merits and affected the judgment, and the plaintiffs had properly preserved the issue by objection at trial.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned the prosecution of defendant for first-degree murder of Macedonio Hernandez Gervacio, along with robbery with a dangerous weapon, first-degree kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury on Gabriel Gervacio. The jury convicted defendant on all counts, including first-degree murder on theories of premeditation and felony murder, and recommended a death sentence. The court found no error in the guilt-innocence phase, including procedures for jury selection during voir dire and the trial court's instructions on aggravating circumstances for sentencing. It upheld the convictions for murder, robbery, and kidnapping but vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new capital sentencing proceeding; judgment on the assault conviction was arrested and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved two licensed bail bondsmen charged with misdemeanor breaking and entering, assault on a female, and injury to property after they entered the home of their principal's mother to apprehend him for failing to appear in court on worthless check charges. The defendants were convicted in district court and again after a de novo superior court trial, where the court refused their request for jury instructions on the common law authority of bail bondsmen to break and enter the principal's residence and use reasonable force. The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial, and the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed, holding that the bondsmen were entitled to such instructions because common law permits sureties to seize their principal, including by entering his home if necessary. The core reasoning was that without these instructions, the jury could not properly evaluate whether the defendants acted within their legal authority rather than as trespassers.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree kidnapping and first-degree rape after abducting and assaulting a victim at gunpoint. The trial court reduced the kidnapping conviction to second-degree and imposed an enhanced sentence adding sixty months for firearm use under the Structured Sentencing Act. The Court of Appeals vacated the enhancement, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed that decision. The court reasoned that the firearm enhancement applies to the second-degree kidnapping sentence because use of a firearm is not an element of that offense, regardless of its role in the related rape conviction.

criminal lawguns

In this criminal case, defendant Elizabeth Jackson was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury after shooting her husband, and the trial court admitted testimony from the victim's mother about a prior conversation under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, holding that the admission violated the Confrontation Clause of the North Carolina Constitution because the victim was available to testify and the prosecution had not shown necessity or inherent trustworthiness. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that the state Confrontation Clause is not violated when hearsay falls within a firmly rooted exception such as the state-of-mind exception, and no additional particularized findings of necessity or reliability are required beyond what the federal Confrontation Clause demands. The court therefore remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over whether a trial court properly modified an existing child custody order by awarding custody of two minor children to their father based on changed circumstances. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence of a substantial change affecting the children's welfare, and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals decision that had required proof of an adverse effect on the children. The Court reasoned that N.C.G.S. § 50-13.7(b) and prior precedent require only a showing of changed circumstances impacting the child's best interests, without limiting the inquiry to adverse consequences, and disapproved earlier appellate decisions imposing an adverse-effect requirement.

family law

In State v. Fly, the defendant was charged with indecent exposure under N.C.G.S. § 14-190.9 after a woman encountered him bent over and naked from the waist down on a public staircase, exposing his buttocks. He was convicted in district court, and the superior court upheld the conviction after a de novo trial, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that buttocks are not "private parts" within the meaning of the statute. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the evidence was sufficient because the statute requires only that private parts be willfully exposed in a public place in the presence of a person of the opposite sex, not that they be actually seen, and a reasonable jury could find that the defendant's naked exposure included his anus or genitals. The Court further reasoned that the statute does not demand the victim change position to view more of the exposure and that the defendant's act was willful rather than incidental.

criminal law

In State v. Billings, the defendant was tried and convicted in Caswell County Superior Court of first-degree murder (on both premeditation and felony murder grounds), first-degree burglary, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, first-degree kidnapping, and first-degree rape, arising from a nighttime attack on two children in their home that resulted in the death of the eleven-year-old girl and severe injuries to her brother; the jury recommended and the court imposed a death sentence. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence. It held that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motions for change of venue or special venire because he failed to show specific prejudice from pretrial publicity, having neither exhausted his peremptory challenges nor identified any biased juror who sat on the panel. The Court also rejected the claim that voir dire on parole eligibility was required, adhering to its prior precedent distinguishing Simmons v. South Carolina. Finally, after proportionality review, the Court concluded that the death sentence was not disproportionate given the multiple child victims and accompanying violent felonies.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Gregory, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, felonious breaking and entering, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury after shooting his ex-girlfriend and her brother in their home, and he received a death sentence for the murder. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his initial statements to police, claiming they were obtained during custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, and also challenged the proportionality of the death sentence. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the statements were admissible because the defendant was not in custody when he voluntarily went to the jail and made the statements without prompting. The court further determined after proportionality review that the death sentence was not disproportionate compared to similar cases, given factors such as the multiple victims and the domestic nature of the crimes. The court therefore found no prejudicial error and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. McHone, the defendant, convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, filed a motion for appropriate relief and a discovery motion alleging constitutional violations and improper ex parte contacts by the State. The trial court denied the motions without an evidentiary hearing or ruling on discovery. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1420(c), a factual dispute regarding whether the defendant received notice of a proposed order required an evidentiary hearing, and the trial court must reconsider the discovery motion in light of State v. Bates. The Court reversed the denial and remanded for further proceedings, including findings of fact on the ex parte issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a law firm seeking to recover attorney's fees from the State of North Carolina in quantum meruit for legal services provided in two public nuisance abatement actions that were filed at the request of a district attorney. The trial court dismissed the claims against the State on sovereign immunity grounds, but the Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the dismissal, holding that sovereign immunity bars recovery on a contract implied in law because only a valid express contract entered in compliance with statutory requirements waives the State's immunity. The Court reasoned that an implied-in-law contract is not an actual agreement and does not satisfy the consent needed to sue the State, while a separate statute provides the exclusive non-contractual method for compensating attorneys in such nuisance actions.

procedure