Willis P. Whichard

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit by the estate of Mary Louise Brown against Dr. Kenneth Flowe after she died during surgery at Pitt County Memorial Hospital. The plaintiff had previously settled with a resident physician and the hospital for about $178,000 and then obtained a $250,000 verdict against the defendant doctor; the trial court added prejudgment interest to the full verdict before crediting the settlement, but the Court of Appeals reversed that approach. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that prejudgment interest under N.C.G.S. § 24-5(b) must be calculated on the entire compensatory damages award without first subtracting the settlement. It reasoned that N.C.G.S. § 1B-4 requires reducing the claim against the nonsettling defendant by the settlement amount, but to do so fairly the settlement must be adjusted to judgment-time value by applying the same legal interest rate from the settlement date, then subtracted from the interest-adjusted verdict. The case was remanded for recalculation using that method.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case concerned North Carolina General Statute § 15A-534.1, which requires that a judge, rather than a magistrate, set pretrial release conditions for defendants charged with certain domestic violence offenses, and permits detention for up to 48 hours if no judge is available. Defendant Ronnie Thompson was arrested on a Saturday for misdemeanor assault inflicting serious injury against a former domestic partner and remained in custody until a judge reviewed his case on Monday, nearly 48 hours later. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the statute as applied to Thompson violated his federal procedural due process rights because the detention lasted longer than reasonably necessary to serve the state's interest in judicial review of bail conditions. The court reasoned that Thompson received no prompt post-arrest hearing at a meaningful time, resulting in a deprivation of liberty that exceeded the minimum time required for the regulatory purpose, and it therefore affirmed dismissal of the charges.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Murillo, the defendant was indicted for the first-degree murder of his wife after years of documented physical abuse, convicted by a jury on the basis of premeditation and deliberation, and sentenced to death following a capital sentencing proceeding. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, ruling that the trial court did not err in its handling of discovery motions and that the State had complied with statutory requirements by providing the substance of relevant statements. The court further held that the death penalty was not disproportionate, citing the extended history of abuse, the location of the killing inside the home, and the defendant's prior similar incident involving his first wife.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Flippen was convicted of first-degree murder for inflicting fatal blows on his two-year-old stepdaughter and initially sentenced to death; after the North Carolina Supreme Court vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing due to an instructional error, a jury again recommended death, which the trial court imposed. On appeal, the defendant challenged the remand procedure from the prior proceeding, the submission of the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance, and the proportionality of the death sentence. The court held that the prior remand was proper under the statute requiring a new sentencing hearing rather than automatic imposition of life imprisonment, that sufficient evidence supported the aggravating circumstance, and that the death sentence was not disproportionate when compared to similar cases. The court therefore affirmed the judgment, finding the sentencing proceeding free from prejudicial error.

criminal law

In State v. Hoffman, the defendant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and first-degree murder (on grounds of both premeditation and felony murder) after entering a jewelry store in 1995, shooting the victim, and stealing items including jewelry and pistols; he was sentenced to death following a capital sentencing proceeding. The North Carolina Supreme Court had previously remanded for a Batson hearing on jury selection, which the trial court resolved in the State's favor by finding race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenges. The court addressed the remaining issues on appeal, including whether a prospective juror was properly excused for cause based on her equivocal responses about imposing the death penalty, and whether the death sentence was disproportionate. It upheld the convictions and sentence, reasoning that the juror's statements met the Wainwright v. Witt standard for substantial impairment and that the case was comparable to others where death was deemed proportionate, such as one involving similar robbery-murder facts and aggravating circumstances. The court concluded there was no prejudicial error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the first-degree murder and armed robbery convictions of a Black defendant who was sentenced to death after shooting and killing a white jewelry store employee during a robbery in North Carolina. On appeal, the defendant raised a Batson claim, arguing that the prosecution had used peremptory challenges to strike Black prospective jurors in violation of equal protection principles. The North Carolina Supreme Court determined that the trial court erred by ruling that the defendant had failed to make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination with respect to two of the challenged jurors, based on factors including the defendant's and victim's races, the pattern of strikes against Black venire members, and the overall circumstances of jury selection. The court therefore remanded the case for a full Batson hearing, including an opportunity for the defendant to respond to any race-neutral explanations offered by the State, while deferring review of the defendant's remaining claims.

criminal lawcivil rights