Michael Schenck

The case involved a criminal appeal by a defendant convicted of killing the owner of the farm where he worked as a tenant, with challenges to multiple evidentiary rulings at trial. The court held that there was no reversible error in admitting testimony about the poor condition of the defendant's crops, the terms of his contract with the deceased, and related disputes over lien waivers, as this evidence was competent to establish motive through demonstrated ill will. Other assignments of error, including testimony about post-arrest statements, wound descriptions, and a privileged communication, were rejected because the evidence was admissible, not properly objected to, withdrawn by the trial court, or not prejudicial in light of the defendant's admission of the killing. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence relevant to the transaction and not introduced merely to show bad character.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a boundary dispute between adjoining landowners over a narrow strip of land along a ditch, turning on the location of a deed call for 'a stake on a ditch' and a claim of adverse possession by the plaintiffs. The court held that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury that such a call generally extends the boundary to the center of the ditch, even if the ditch's width had changed over time. However, the court reversed the nonsuit on the adverse possession claim, ruling that the evidence of the plaintiffs' long-term exclusive use of the strip for access and other purposes raised a factual question for the jury as to whether the use was adverse or merely permissive. A new trial was therefore ordered.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a civil action for damages from alleged wrongful imprisonment due to the defendants' conspiratorial conduct, originally filed in Madison County and then removed by consent to Haywood County. After a mistrial in Haywood County, the trial judge on his own motion found that a fair and impartial trial could not be obtained there and ordered the case transferred to Macon County. The defendants appealed, challenging the judge's authority to make this change of venue without a motion from the parties. The court held that the Superior Court judge possessed inherent authority, derived from common law and not requiring express statutory authorization, to order a venue change ex mero motu when necessary to ensure a fair trial. The judgment ordering the transfer was therefore affirmed.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiffs suing the City of Elizabeth City for property damage from fires that allegedly originated from brush fires negligently set by city employees on municipal land. The court addressed whether the evidence of causation was sufficient to reach a jury and whether governmental immunity applied, but focused on the former. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of the city's motion for nonsuit, holding that the circumstantial evidence left the fire's origin dependent on speculation, including a 200-yard gap between the fires with no proof of spread via ground, air, or other means, and public access to the area allowing other possible causes. The decision applied precedents requiring legal evidence of material facts grounded in reasonable probability rather than conjecture or possibility.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved a criminal prosecution for homicide in which the defendant claimed self-defense after killing the deceased during an altercation. The trial court instructed the jury that the defendant could not claim perfect self-defense if he had willingly entered the combat unless he withdrew from it, but the charge did not address the defendant's evidence that he had attempted to back away and signal the deceased to stop. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that this omission was error because the judge had undertaken to explain the law on withdrawal and therefore should have also covered the opposing evidence and contentions arising from it. As a result, the defendant was entitled to a new trial under the requirement that jury instructions be complete and fair. The appeal was resolved by ordering a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the probate of several paper writings offered as the will of the deceased, where Exhibit A was admitted to probate in common form by the clerk, while Exhibits B, C, and D were refused, prompting a caveat alleging inconsistencies among the documents. The Superior Court issued an order addressing the clerk's refusal to probate the additional exhibits, but the Supreme Court vacated that order. The court held that the issue of probating Exhibits B, C, and D was not properly before it because the propounders had abandoned or were not pressing their appeal and no party was currently seeking to establish those documents as valid wills. It further reasoned that the probated Exhibit A remains conclusive evidence of validity until set aside by a competent tribunal under G.S. 31-19, and that attempting to resolve challenges to the other exhibits in advance was premature. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

propertyprocedure