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and a privileged communication, were rejected because the evidence was admissible, not properly objected to, withdrawn by the trial court, or not prejudicial in light of the defendant's admission of the killing.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

The case involved the trial of defendant Benny Montgomery for the first-degree murder of William Marvin Mangum, who was fatally stabbed during a robbery on a rural road in Union County, North Carolina, on June 1, 1946. The State presented evidence including the defendant's admission to the stabbing, leading a jury to convict him of first-degree murder and resulting in a death sentence. On appeal, the court reviewed assignments of error related to the sufficiency of the evidence and denial of nonsuit motions but found the evidence adequate to support the verdict and no prejudicial errors in the trial proceedings or jury instructions. The court determined that the judgment was defective because it failed to explicitly state the conviction was for first-degree murder, a capital offense under state law, as required for execution. The case was therefore remanded to the Superior Court for entry of a proper judgment on the existing verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Cogdale, the defendant was tried and convicted on two felony counts—willfully breaking and entering the dwelling of Mrs. Charlie Ipock with intent to commit a felony, and assault on her with intent to commit rape—and sentenced to concurrent ten-year prison terms. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of his motion for nonsuit, arguing insufficient evidence of his identity as the perpetrator, as well as the admission of certain testimony from the prosecuting witness and other evidentiary rulings, and alleged errors in the jury charge. The court held that the motion for nonsuit was properly denied because the victim's positive identification of the defendant provided sufficient evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, that the challenged evidence was either competent (such as res gestae statements) or not prejudicial, and that the jury charge contained no substantial error. The court further reasoned that because either count alone supported the judgment and no prejudicial error affected both, the convictions must stand, resulting in a finding of no error.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Rogers, the defendant was charged with assault with intent to commit rape after an incident involving a woman he picked up in his car. The trial court denied the defendant's motions for nonsuit at the close of the state's evidence and again at the close of all evidence. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury. The court reasoned that the victim's testimony about being choked, having her dress torn, and sustaining bruises and marks, together with corroborating witness testimony, constituted more than a scintilla of evidence when viewed most strongly against the defendant.

criminal law

This case involved a criminal defendant's appeal from a conviction, with the sole issue being whether the trial judge violated a statute by expressing an opinion on the sufficiency of evidence in the jury instructions. The challenged portion of the charge summarized the state's position that evidence from an accomplice and corroborating testimony supported a guilty verdict on the first two counts. The court held that no error occurred, as the language clearly presented the state's contentions rather than the judge's own view, and corroborative evidence had been introduced at trial. It further noted that any potential issue was waived because no objection was raised during the charge. The judgment was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned plaintiffs who parked their car monthly on defendant's lot under a $4 contract that disclaimed liability for theft or loss unless a $10 special fee was paid; the car was stolen after being left on the lot. Plaintiffs sued on a bailment theory, but the court found no bailment because the contract only granted permission to occupy space without any delivery or acceptance of possession by the defendant. Without a bailment, the express contract terms controlled and barred recovery, so the trial court's nonsuit was proper and affirmed on appeal.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the trial court erred in striking paragraph 3 of the defendant's further answer, which referenced a prior action involving the same parties along with copies of its summons and complaint. The defendant had already entered a general and specific denial plus a contributory negligence defense; the plaintiff moved to strike the additional material as immaterial and redundant after a voluntary nonsuit had been taken in the earlier case. The court held that the order was proper, explaining that pleadings need only state ultimate facts rather than evidential or probative details, and that irrelevant or redundant matter may be stricken under G.S. 1-153 in the trial court's discretion. No abuse of that discretion was shown, so the ruling was affirmed.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs who executed two promissory notes secured by a mortgage on land, which defendant Hutchins acquired and sought to enforce after they became past due. The jury found against the plaintiffs' claim of payment, leading the court to affirm the decree of foreclosure on the mortgage to satisfy the debt. However, the court granted a partial new trial on the defendant's separate claim for recovery based on improvements made to the property, because the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that the defendant bore the burden of proof on that issue as required by statute.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a criminal prosecution for homicide in which the defendant was convicted after evidence showed he shot the victim. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admission of the victim's statements identifying the shooter as dying declarations, the trial court's definition of manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, and the sufficiency of the jury instructions under G.S. 1-180. The court held that the statements were properly admitted because the record contained sufficient evidence that they were made in anticipation of death. It further ruled that the manslaughter definition aligned with established precedent and that the jury charge adequately stated the evidence and applied the law to the essential features of the case. Finding no error in the proceedings below, the court upheld the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an appeal by the defendant in State v. Biggerstaff from a conviction under a statute prohibiting operation of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants. The appellant challenged the trial court's jury instructions on the definition of being under the influence, the summary of witness testimony, and the statement of the parties' contentions. The Supreme Court declined to reach the merits of these claims because the appellant failed to note exceptions in the record, group and number them separately as required by Rule 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, or properly assign error, and arguments in the brief alone were insufficient. The court therefore affirmed the judgment below, holding that no error had been shown.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a landlord suing a tenant for damages after a fire destroyed a tobacco barn on the leased property, with the plaintiff alleging that the tenant's negligence in assigning an unqualified person to operate the oil heating system, failing to assign a competent operator, and not supervising the system caused the fire. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision on appeal. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence establishing a causal link between the alleged negligence and the fire's origin, and it held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in landlord-tenant fire cases, as a tenant is liable only for damages resulting from negligence rather than accidental fires.

propertytorts & liability

The case Hood v. Smith centered on a dispute over the start date for interest accrual on a deferred payment following a property sale where the defendant took possession. The trial court determined that interest began on January 1, 1947, while the plaintiff maintained it should start on January 1, 1946. The appellate court reversed this ruling, concluding that any unpaid balance draws interest as a matter of law from the date the sale was consummated and possession transferred. The decision relied on established precedent that a debt accrues interest from the time it becomes due, treating unpaid amounts as damages for retention of the principal.

property

This case involves an appeal in which the appellant took only a general exception to the trial court's judgment, without identifying any specific errors. The court affirmed the judgment below. Its reasoning was that such an exception presents solely the question of whether the facts found are legally sufficient to support the judgment; absent targeted challenges to the findings or evidence, those findings are presumed correct and binding on appeal.

procedure

The case involved a defendant charged under two counts: violation of G.S. 14-29 for maiming the prosecuting witness's private parts, and assault inflicting serious damage. The court held that the first count should have been dismissed because the statute requires evidence of permanent injury to constitute maiming, but the testimony showed no such permanent harm to the testicles or private parts. On the second count, the court noted that assault inflicting serious damage is a misdemeanor that cannot support a prison sentence of two to five years, and therefore remanded the case for entry of a proper judgment based solely on the misdemeanor conviction.

criminal law

This case involved a defendant's appeal from a first-degree murder conviction, with the sole remaining challenges concerning the trial judge's jury instructions. Exception 4 claimed error in the charge stating that premeditation or deliberation was required for first-degree murder, though the opinion notes the judge later corrected the phrasing to require both elements. Exception 5 asserted that the judge failed to instruct on self-defense, but the court found the state's evidence showed an unprovoked shooting with no supporting facts for such a defense. The court held that any initial misstatement was cured by later correct instructions and that no self-defense charge was warranted, resulting in a finding of no error.

criminal law