Paul Martin Newby

This case originated in 1994 when students, parents, and school boards from specific low-wealth and urban districts in North Carolina sued the State and State Board of Education, alleging that the allocation of education funds violated students' rights under the state constitution to a sound basic education. Over time, the litigation expanded from claims focused on named districts to a statewide challenge involving a comprehensive remedial plan for public education funding and resources. The North Carolina Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue its April 2023 order after the claims had transformed substantially without following procedures to invoke jurisdiction over the new issues. The Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because litigants must properly invoke jurisdiction for the specific claims presented, and a complete change in subject matter without such invocation prevents adjudication. The decision emphasizes that jurisdiction is not automatically extended when the scope of a case shifts dramatically from its original pleadings.

civil rightsprocedure

In this case, defendant Quantez Lashay Thomas was convicted after a second trial of multiple theft-related offenses following a successful appeal that ordered a new trial due to an invalid waiver of counsel. After the first trial, the trial court had consolidated the convictions and imposed sentences that undercalculated the minimum term required by North Carolina's Structured Sentencing Act for the most serious offense in each judgment. On remand, the court corrected the error in the second judgment by imposing a longer sentence consistent with the statutory framework, resulting in an overall increase. The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed, holding that trial courts must impose lawful sentences under the mandatory sentencing statutes and that the statutory bar on increased sentences after a successful appeal does not prevent correction of an illegal original sentence. The core reasoning is that courts cannot perpetuate errors that produce sentences below the legislature's prescribed range.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained under a search warrant in a criminal prosecution for breaking and entering and related thefts. Officers investigating stolen lottery tickets located a vehicle matching the description from security footage and conducted a knock-and-talk at the residence, during which they observed additional stolen items in the vehicle before obtaining the warrant. The North Carolina Supreme Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision upholding the trial court's ruling. The court held that the warrant was supported by probable cause from independent facts, such as the vehicle's description, fictitious plates, and connection to the crime, without needing to resolve whether the officers' actions at the vehicle during the knock-and-talk violated the Fourth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved whether cell-site location information (CSLI) obtained by police via a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) should be suppressed in a drug trafficking prosecution because the order lacked probable cause under the U.S. and North Carolina Constitutions. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the statutory good faith exception in N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 applies only to substantial violations of Chapter 15A and not to constitutional violations, but that the federal and state constitutions themselves permit admission of the evidence under a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Court therefore concluded that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision ordering a new trial, and remanded for further proceedings. The ruling turns on the distinction between statutory and constitutional remedies for improper acquisition of digital location records.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission properly denied Maurice Devalle's application for justice officer certification on grounds that he lacked the good moral character required for deputy sheriffs. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision. The court applied the whole record test and found that Devalle's own sworn testimony provided substantial evidence of his lack of candor and truthfulness, stemming from incidents where he falsified time records and residency information while employed with the Highway Patrol. The decision emphasized that this evidence supported the Commission's conclusion without needing further investigation by the Commission itself.

labor & employmentcriminal law

In State v. Wright, police officers stopped defendant Eric Wayne Wright based on a tip about an illegal firearm, conducted a pat-down with his permission, and repeatedly requested consent to search his backpack, which contained a stolen handgun. The trial court denied Wright's motion to suppress the evidence, finding that he had voluntarily consented to the search under the totality of the circumstances, including that officers had returned his identification and maintained a calm demeanor without brandishing weapons. The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the order, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the consent was voluntary and the search therefore permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The court reinstated the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved bar owners and operators who sued North Carolina's Governor and the State, alleging that COVID-19 executive orders closing bars or restricting their operations violated plaintiffs' state constitutional right to earn a living. The Supreme Court of North Carolina modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, allowing the claims to proceed past the pleading stage. The court reasoned that sovereign immunity does not bar direct constitutional claims (known as Corum claims) when plaintiffs colorably allege a violation of state constitutional rights causing injury with no adequate alternative state remedy, and that the complaint here sufficiently pleaded such a colorable claim under precedents like Kinsley v. Ace Speedway Racing. The opinion treats the factual allegations as true and focuses on whether the restrictions could support a violation of the right to earn a living.

business & regulatorycivil rights

This case concerned whether North Carolina General Statute § 15A-1215(a), which permits substituting an alternate juror after jury deliberations have begun in a criminal trial, violates the state constitution's guarantee of a unanimous twelve-person jury. The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and assault after an alternate juror replaced one excused during deliberations, with instructions to restart deliberations. The trial court allowed the substitution, but the Court of Appeals vacated the convictions, finding a constitutional violation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the statute mandates restarting deliberations from the beginning, the substitution does not result in an improperly constituted jury or violate Article I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a products liability lawsuit brought by two minor children through their guardian against Ford Motor Company for injuries from a 2003 car crash, where plaintiffs alleged defects in the Taurus's seat belts contributed to their harm even though Ford did not cause the accident. The core dispute centered on whether Ford could invoke the statutory defense under N.C.G.S. § 99B-3, which protects manufacturers from liability for injuries proximately caused by unauthorized alterations or modifications to their products by others. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the defense applies even if the person who altered the product is not a party to the litigation at the time of trial, reasoning that the statute's plain language imposes no such requirement and broadly shields manufacturers from liability for modifications made without their consent. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' contrary ruling and remanded for further proceedings on remaining issues.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Nickerson, the defendant was convicted of felonious possession of stolen goods after police stopped him driving a vehicle reported stolen earlier that day. He had requested a jury instruction on unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as a lesser included offense, but the trial court refused. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the instruction should have been given. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, applying the definitional test from State v. Weaver to conclude that unauthorized use of a motor vehicle requires proof of operating a motor-propelled conveyance, an essential element not required for possession of stolen goods. As a result, the defendant was not entitled to the lesser-included-offense instruction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose when a police officer contacted his professional membership association for help with an employment grievance and related lawsuit against his employer and chief of police; the association referred him to an attorney and agreed to cover part of the legal fees. The plaintiff chief of police then sued the association for torts including maintenance and champerty, seeking discovery of communications and fee arrangements among the officer, the association, and the attorney. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled that the attorney-client privilege did not protect the requested information, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tripartite arrangement created an attorney-client relationship such that the privilege applies to qualifying confidential communications. The court reasoned that an attorney-client relationship forms when a client seeks legal advice in confidence with intent to establish the relationship, and it directed the trial court to conduct an in camera review to determine which materials are privileged before ordering production.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved two women in a domestic partnership who conceived and raised a child together, with one giving birth after using an anonymous sperm donor, followed by an attempt by the non-biological partner to formally adopt the child through a Durham County district court proceeding. The Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that the resulting adoption decree was void from the outset because state statutes did not grant courts subject matter jurisdiction to approve that form of adoption. Nevertheless, the court upheld the trial court's joint custody determination between the parties, concluding that the biological mother had acted inconsistently with her paramount constitutional parental rights by intentionally establishing a permanent shared parenting arrangement. This inconsistency permitted application of the best interests of the child standard rather than a presumption favoring the biological parent.

family law

This case arose after plaintiff obtained a $567,000 judgment against defendant, who then sought to shield his two Fidelity IRAs from collection efforts by claiming them as exempt property under North Carolina law. The trial court declared the IRAs exempt, vacated a writ of execution against them, and ordered that any future withdrawals be placed in escrow for review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the exemption but struck down the escrow requirement. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that N.C.G.S. § 1C-1601(a)(9) exempts the IRAs from execution and that the trial court acted within its equitable authority by imposing the escrow arrangement, reasoning that the statute protects retirement funds with a liberal construction favoring debtors and that early-withdrawal penalties already discourage abuse.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether the North Carolina Division of Land Resources properly granted a variance to Mountain Air Development Corporation allowing construction of additional golf course holes that encroached on the required buffer zone around trout waters under state sedimentation control laws. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the variance was valid and reversed the Court of Appeals decision. The Court reasoned that the statutory provisions permitted such variances when the project complied with the buffer requirements through the approved plan, distinguishing between temporary construction activities and permanent alterations, and noting that the agency had followed the law in issuing the variance after extensive review.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Michael Ray's trial on charges of first-degree statutory sexual offense and indecent liberties with a child arising from an alleged incident with a seven-year-old victim at his home in 2005. After the trial court admitted evidence of the defendant's prior alcohol consumption and assaultive behavior, the Court of Appeals granted a new trial, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed that decision in part. The court held that the defendant failed to preserve the evidentiary issue for appeal because he did not make a timely objection at trial and did not argue plain error on appeal. It further concluded that even if the issue had been preserved, the defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the evidence and thus was not entitled to a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a delinquent juvenile, D.L.H., was entitled to credit against her fourteen-day term of confinement for fifty-five days spent in secure custody pending disposition after violating probation terms related to an initial affray adjudication. The district court imposed the confinement without credit, the Court of Appeals reversed and applied the criminal credit-for-time-served statute, and the Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed that holding. The court reasoned that juvenile proceedings are distinct from criminal prosecutions, with different purposes focused on protection and rehabilitation rather than punishment, and that neither the Juvenile Code nor criminal procedure statutes authorize applying N.C.G.S. § 15-196.1 to reduce juvenile confinement terms. Because the legislature had not included such a credit provision in the Juvenile Code, the judiciary could not read one in.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether commercial general liability insurance policies required insurers to defend a company against claims of false advertising by a competitor in the insect repellent market. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the insurers had no duty to defend because the policies' exclusion for injuries resulting from the failure of the insured's goods to conform to advertised quality or performance applied to the competitor's allegations. The court reasoned that the underlying complaint alleged only that the defendants made false statements about their own products, which fell squarely within the exclusion, reversing the Court of Appeals' contrary decision.

business & regulatory

The case involved partners in Ace Fabrication and Welding who sued one partner, Andrew Thompson, after he left the business, started a competing firm, and allegedly diverted work and resources, claiming this breached fiduciary duties and violated North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The trial court and jury found liability under the Act, but the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The Court held that the Act applies only to unfair or deceptive conduct occurring in interactions between separate market participants, not to disputes arising solely from internal partnership operations. It reasoned that the General Assembly did not intend the statute to regulate purely intra-business conduct, so Thompson's actions within the single partnership were not "in or affecting commerce" under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.

business & regulatory

This case involved a 13-year-old juvenile, J.D.B., facing delinquency petitions for breaking and entering and larceny after he made incriminating statements to police during questioning at his school. The trial court denied his motion to suppress those statements, finding he was not in custody and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings or the additional juvenile protections under N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101(a), then adjudicated him delinquent. The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the Court of Appeals decision upholding the denial of suppression. The court reasoned that under the totality of the circumstances—including the school conference room setting, the presence of school officials, the officer's statements that J.D.B. was free to leave and not under arrest, and the fact that he was allowed to catch his bus home afterward—the juvenile was not deprived of his freedom in a manner associated with formal arrest.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust established under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between tobacco companies and states to provide economic assistance to tobacco growers. The dispute centered on whether the companies could use the Trust's Tax Offset Adjustment provision to reduce their required payments to the Trust by the amounts they paid under the federal Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004, which ended the prior quota and price support system. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the companies were permitted to offset their FETRA obligations against all Trust payments due, affirming the Court of Appeals. The majority's reasoning focused on the plain language of the adjustment provision, which it found allowed the offset without limitation based on which states benefited from the federal payments. The decision resolved conflicting interpretations from prior litigation over the same Trust.

business & regulatory