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

The case concerned whether the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission could revoke Marilyn Britt’s certification as a deputy sheriff after she entered a no-contest plea to the Class B misdemeanor of obstruction of justice, even though the court entered a prayer for judgment continued. The Commission interpreted the relevant administrative code provisions as treating the no-contest plea as a conviction authorizing revocation and alternatively as permitting revocation based on commission of the offense itself. The trial court and Court of Appeals held that the plea followed by a prayer for judgment continued did not constitute a conviction under the regulations, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the plain language of 12 NCAC 10B .0103(2)(c) and .0204(d)(2) expressly includes a no-contest plea as a conviction regardless of the subsequent prayer for judgment continued and that the Commission therefore properly revoked the certification.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to a statutory death benefit under N.C.G.S. § 128-27(1) following the death of his wife, a Mecklenburg County employee who had retired on disability. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that no benefit was due. The court reasoned that under the plain language of the statute, retirement terminates employment, making the wife's last day of actual service the last day she worked rather than the later date when her sick leave expired, and more than 180 days had passed since that date before her death.

labor & employment

The case involved parents suing a family physician for medical malpractice and negligent infliction of emotional distress after he failed to inform them of blood test results showing they carried sickle-cell disease traits, which led to the birth of their second child with the disease. The trial court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The court held that the allegations sufficiently stated claims because a physician has a duty to communicate test results and exercise reasonable care, allowing the malpractice and emotional distress claims to proceed, though recovery of certain child-rearing expenses was barred under precedent. The court also upheld the Court of Appeals' grant of an extension for filing the appeal record.

healthcaretorts & liability

This case arose from a 1991 fire at the Imperial Foods chicken processing plant in Hamlet, North Carolina, in which numerous employees were injured or killed due to unmarked and blocked exits. Plaintiffs, consisting of injured workers and estates of deceased workers, sued the North Carolina Department of Labor and its OSHA division under the Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence in failing to conduct required workplace inspections under N.C.G.S. § 95-4. The trial commission and Court of Appeals denied the state's motion to dismiss, holding that the statute created an actionable duty and that the public duty doctrine did not apply to Tort Claims Act suits. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed, ruling that the public duty doctrine barred the claims because the duty to inspect workplaces was owed to the public generally rather than to specific individuals, and the Tort Claims Act did not eliminate this limitation on state liability.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involved defendant Jamie Lamont Smith, who was convicted of first-degree murder, arson, attempted murder, conspiracy, and related charges after stealing mail, using a stolen credit card, and setting fire to an apartment building to destroy evidence of the theft, resulting in one death from smoke inhalation and severe burns to others. Following a capital sentencing proceeding, the jury recommended and the trial court imposed a death sentence for the murder, along with consecutive prison terms for the other convictions. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, concluding that the trial was free from prejudicial error, the jury was properly instructed that life imprisonment meant life without parole, and the death penalty was not disproportionate after reviewing aggravating and mitigating circumstances and comparing to other cases in the proportionality pool.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Earl Richmond Jr., who was convicted of first-degree rape and three counts of first-degree murder, with the murders based on malice, premeditation, and deliberation as well as the felony murder rule, and sentenced to death following a capital trial. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by refusing to allow a question to prospective jurors about whether they could still consider mitigating circumstances and impose life imprisonment despite his prior first-degree murder conviction, citing Morgan v. Illinois. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences, concluding that the proposed question was an impermissible stake-out question that sought to commit jurors in advance to a decision based on specific facts. The court reasoned that such questions are confusing to jurors who have not yet heard evidence or received legal instructions and are barred by precedent such as State v. Robinson.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Beatty, defendant was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon and other offenses after participating in an armed robbery of a restaurant, during which two employees were restrained at gunpoint and one was bound and kicked. The trial court sentenced him on the robbery and two counts of second-degree kidnapping, among other charges. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the kidnapping conviction for the victim who was merely guarded with a gun must be vacated because the restraint was inherent in the armed robbery itself and could not support a separate kidnapping conviction under N.C.G.S. § 14-39, while the conviction for the victim who was bound and kicked could stand because those actions constituted additional restraint beyond what was necessary for the robbery. The court reached this result by interpreting the kidnapping statute to avoid punishing the same conduct twice, following its prior decisions in State v. Fulcher and State v. Irwin.

criminal law

In this case, plaintiff Lewis Kurtzman sued his former employer, Applied Analytical Industries, for breach of an employment contract after being terminated shortly after starting work, alleging that the employer's assurances of job security (such as 'if you do your job, you'll have a job') combined with his relocation of residence created an enforceable contract terminable only for cause. A jury awarded Kurtzman $350,000 in damages, which the trial court and Court of Appeals upheld. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed, holding that North Carolina adheres to the employment-at-will doctrine under which employment without a specified definite term is terminable at the will of either party. The court reasoned that the limited exceptions to at-will employment—such as contracts for a definite term, statutory protections, or public policy violations—did not apply, and it rejected the asserted exception based on additional consideration like moving residence as insufficient to remove the at-will presumption.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Warren, defendant Lesley Eugene Warren pled guilty to the first-degree murder of Jayme Denise Hurley in 1995 and, after a capital sentencing hearing, received a jury recommendation of death; he appealed, challenging the admission of postmortem photographs from a prior South Carolina murder conviction and a videotape of the victim's disinterment, as well as the State's cross-examination of his expert witness regarding prior bad acts. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court committed no prejudicial error, that the sentencing proceeding was fair, and that the death sentence was not disproportionate. The court reasoned that the photographic and videotape evidence was relevant to prove aggravating circumstances under N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(e)(3) and to illustrate witness testimony on the manner of killing and concealment, that the defendant had opened the door to cross-examination by eliciting related testimony on direct, and that the case involved multiple statutory aggravators and two murder victims, making it comparable to prior cases upholding death sentences rather than the seven disproportionate cases identified by the court.

criminal law

In State v. Tucker, the defendant was indicted and tried for first-degree murder and related assaults after shooting and killing a security guard during a shoplifting incident at a K-Mart store on December 8, 1994, and firing at police officers. The jury convicted him of first-degree murder on theories of premeditation and deliberation as well as felony murder, and recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court addressed issues including the trial court's allowance of a jury view of the police vehicle, the defendant's capacity to proceed, and proportionality of the sentence, ultimately holding that the trial was fair and free from prejudicial error and that the death sentence was not disproportionate to similar cases.

criminal law

This case concerned the admissibility of a defendant's inculpatory statements to police in a first-degree murder prosecution. After a remand from a prior appeal, the trial court held a hearing and found that the defendant had waived his Fifth Amendment right to counsel before making the statements during a November 4, 1992, interrogation. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding that competent evidence supported the trial court's factual findings that the defendant never invoked his right to counsel during an earlier September 21, 1992, interview on unrelated charges and voluntarily waived his rights at the start of the November interview. The court reasoned that the officers' testimony established the defendant understood and waived his Miranda rights on both dates, with the first request for counsel occurring only after he had already made inculpatory statements on November 4, making the statements properly admitted at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Page, the defendant was indicted and tried for first-degree murder and multiple assault and firearm charges after firing a high-powered rifle from his apartment, killing one police officer and endangering others including a blind resident and additional officers. The jury convicted him of all charges, finding the murder was committed with premeditation and deliberation as well as under the felony murder rule with the assaults on officers as underlying felonies, and recommended a death sentence that the trial court imposed. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, concluding that the trial was free of prejudicial error and that the death penalty was not disproportionate in light of the calculated killing of an officer engaged in official duties, the presence of aggravating circumstances, and comparisons to prior cases.

criminal lawguns

This case involved shareholders and directors of a furniture company who sued their retained accountants for breach of contract as third-party beneficiaries, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud, alleging that erroneous financial statements caused the company to expand, incur unmanageable debt, enter bankruptcy, and force the plaintiffs to pay personally guaranteed corporate loans. The court held that the plaintiffs could not sue in their individual capacities to recover for the lost value of their corporate stock, as such injuries belonged to the corporation, but they could proceed individually on claims arising from their personal guarantees of the company's debts. It allowed the negligent misrepresentation claim to go forward but dismissed the constructive fraud claim, reasoning that the latter requires evidence that the defendants took advantage of a confidential relationship for their own benefit, which was absent here. The decision affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower courts' rulings on these issues.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved competing applications by Frontier Utilities and Piedmont Natural Gas Company for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide natural gas service to four unserved North Carolina counties. The Utilities Commission denied Piedmont's request to use expansion fund financing for the project, finding it inconsistent with state law when service could be provided through traditional financing, and instead awarded a conditional certificate to Frontier after it demonstrated economic feasibility. Piedmont declined the conditional certificate and appealed, arguing errors in the Commission's statutory interpretation, procedural rulings, and failure to apply a net present value analysis. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's orders, holding that its interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 62-158 aligned with legislative intent, its findings were supported by evidence showing Frontier's feasible alternative financing, and there were no procedural errors in the hearings or evidence handling.

business & regulatory