Robert F. Orr

This case is a continuation of Leandro v. State, addressing whether the State of North Carolina failed to meet its constitutional duty to provide Hoke County students the opportunity for a sound basic education. The court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the State had not fulfilled this obligation for certain at-risk students, and it upheld (with modifications) the directive requiring the State to correct deficient educational methods and practices. However, the court reversed the trial court's order to expand pre-kindergarten programs statewide for at-risk students, finding that this remedy improperly infringed on the roles of the legislative and executive branches. It also affirmed the trial court's inclusion of federal funds when evaluating the State's compliance with constitutional standards.

civil rights

This case concerned whether a landlord could be held liable when a tenant's dogs attacked and injured a third party who had entered the rental property to prepare a demolition estimate. The plaintiff sued the tenant for strict liability and both the tenant and landlord for negligence; a jury found the landlord and tenant negligent and awarded damages, but a divided Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against the landlord on the ground that it was not an owner or keeper of the dogs. The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed whether the negligence claim could proceed on a premises-liability theory even though the landlord was not the dogs' keeper, noting that animals differ from fixed premises conditions and that lease provisions giving the landlord authority to order removal of dangerous pets could support a duty of care. The court distinguished the negligence claim from traditional strict-liability animal cases that require proof the defendant was the owner or keeper with scienter of viciousness.

torts & liabilityproperty

In State v. Jones, the defendant was indicted and convicted of two counts of first-degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation for shooting his wife and stepson in their home, after which he attempted suicide; the jury recommended and the trial court imposed death sentences for each murder. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court addressed multiple assignments of error related to jury selection, including the denial of voir dire on parole eligibility, the statutory method of selecting jurors under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1214(d), the randomness of jury panels, and other evidentiary and procedural rulings. The court overruled all claims, finding they were either barred by precedent, waived for failure to object at trial, or within the trial court's discretion, and conducted proportionality review to conclude that the death sentences were not disproportionate given the aggravating circumstances such as the course of conduct and murders in the home. The court ultimately held that the defendant received a fair trial and sentencing free from prejudicial error and affirmed the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns whether an attorney must disclose communications with his deceased client, Derril Willard, in the investigation of Eric Miller's death by arsenic poisoning. The court reviewed the trial court's in camera examination of the attorney's affidavit and determined that certain communications relating solely to a third party fell outside the attorney-client privilege and should be disclosed to the prosecution. The court affirmed the disclosure of non-privileged information from the affidavit while protecting the remainder as privileged, based on the principles established in the prior Miller I decision regarding exceptions to attorney-client privilege after a client's death.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Matthews, the defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, second-degree burglary, and related theft charges after evidence showed he entered the victim's home, tied and gagged her leading to asphyxiation, and fled with her property and vehicle. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder under premeditation and the felony murder rule, burglary, and other offenses, resulting in a death sentence. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that defense counsel's concession during closing arguments that the defendant was guilty of second-degree murder without his consent amounted to per se ineffective assistance of counsel under State v. Harbison, violating the Sixth Amendment. The court also identified improper prosecutorial closing arguments involving personal opinions and name-calling but granted a new trial primarily on the ineffective assistance ground after reviewing the record and remand findings. The decision reversed the convictions and ordered a retrial.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Mitchell, the defendant was arrested for driving while impaired after failing to stop at a police driver's license checkpoint on U.S. Highway 29/74 and then accelerating past the officers, nearly striking one. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the stop and arrest, ruling that the checkpoint was unconstitutional due to unbridled officer discretion. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the checkpoint valid under the Fourth Amendment. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals as modified, holding that the constitutionality of the checkpoint need not be decided because the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the defendant based on his failure to stop and evasive actions, which justified the pursuit and eventual stop one and a half miles later.

criminal lawcivil rights