Dan K. Moore

In State v. Thomas, the defendant was convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence including statements to a third party, blood-stained clothing matching the victim's blood type, a matching fingerprint, and testimony from the victim's young son Eric Stancil, who was about five and a half at the time of the crime. The defendant appealed, challenging the trial court's ruling that allowed Eric to testify after a voir dire hearing and arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the child was competent because he demonstrated an understanding of the difference between truth and lies, awareness of biblical concepts of truth-telling, and normal recall ability for his age, consistent with precedents like Wheeler v. United States. The court further found the chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish both the corpus delicti and the defendant's identity as the perpetrator, overcoming the motion for nonsuit, with no prejudicial error in the trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of attempted rape who challenged the admission of the victim's in-court identification of him as her assailant, arguing that the trial court failed to make timely findings on its reliability under Neil v. Biggers standards and that the identification was inherently unreliable; he also contested the state's use of extrinsic evidence to impeach an alibi witness with a prior inconsistent statement. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that no pretrial identification procedure had occurred, so the Biggers reliability analysis and formal findings were not required, leaving the identification's credibility for the jury to decide. The court further ruled that impeachment of the alibi witness was proper because the inconsistent statement concerned material subject matter central to the defense. Finding no prejudicial error in the trial proceedings, the court affirmed the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Vaughn, the defendant appealed his North Carolina murder conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because no probable cause hearing was held before the grand jury returned a true bill, by denying his motion to quash the indictments due to allegedly improper jury commission selection methods under G.S. 9-3, and by making certain evidentiary rulings on character evidence and a prosecutor's question about parole eligibility in another state. The North Carolina Supreme Court overruled all assignments of error and found no prejudicial error in the proceedings. The court reasoned that G.S. 15A-606 does not require a probable cause hearing once an indictment has been returned, that the jury commission's systematic process and use of officials to identify disqualified persons complied with statutory requirements without unlawful exclusions, and that the evidentiary decisions were proper under the rules of evidence and did not unduly prejudice the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned disputes over liability on promissory notes, guaranty agreements, and a letter of credit issued by First Union National Bank in connection with a loan involving multiple parties including the Stewarts, Pridemore, O'Grady, and the MacQueens. Plaintiffs sought to introduce parol evidence that their obligations were conditioned on the Stewarts remaining liable, but the trial court excluded this evidence and ruled without making findings of fact under Rule 52 despite conflicting testimony about the execution of the documents. The Supreme Court determined that the trial court erred in excluding the evidence and failing to resolve factual disputes, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial as to O'Grady and the MacQueens, while affirming the judgment against Pridemore on grounds that his own actions bound him to the note regardless of the Stewarts' status.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Love, the defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on alleged violations of New York extradition laws and his right to a speedy trial, as well as in admitting certain evidence and denying a mistrial. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that there was no error in the trial proceedings. The court reasoned that any issues with New York extradition procedures should have been raised in New York courts, the delay in trial did not violate speedy trial rights under the Barker v. Wingo factors given the defendant's flight and lack of prejudice, the evidence was admissible either as non-hearsay or under exceptions, and the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial after sustaining an objection and instructing the jury.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a trial court erred by excluding a chiropractor's expert testimony on a plaintiff's diagnosis in the absence of other medical evidence. The court held that the ruling could not be reviewed for error because the plaintiff failed to make a specific offer of proof showing what the excluded testimony would have been. The core reasoning was that an offer of proof is required whenever a witness is barred from testifying on a specific matter, even if framed as a question of the witness's competency, so that the reviewing court can assess prejudice; the limited exception for total exclusion of a witness did not apply here since the chiropractor had testified on other aspects of the case.

procedure