I Beverly Lake sr

The case Elmwood v. Elmwood involved enforcement of a prior order requiring a father to make monthly child support payments, including adjudication of willful contempt for non-payment and a garnishment order against his military retirement benefits to satisfy arrearages. The court affirmed the contempt finding and sentence, as they were supported by evidence of the defendant's ability to pay from private employment and retirement income. It modified the garnishment, holding that 42 U.S.C. § 659 permits state garnishment proceedings against federal retirement pay as remuneration for employment but not against disability payments, and that North Carolina law under G.S. 110-136 limits such garnishment to 20% for child support; certain disbursement orders were vacated and the matter remanded for adjusted distributions. The core reasoning distinguished types of federal payments under federal law while applying state procedural limits on attachment and garnishment.

family lawfederal power

In State v. House, the defendant appealed his criminal convictions, arguing among other issues that the bill of indictment was invalid because it lacked an explicit attestation by the grand jury foreman that twelve or more jurors had concurred in finding a true bill. The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected this and the defendant's other claims, holding that the foreman's signature beneath the statement that the bill was a true bill, combined with the statutory requirement of at least twelve concurrences under G.S. 15A-623 and G.S. 15A-644, sufficiently attested to the necessary concurrence. The court further determined that related statutory provisions on marking witnesses were directory rather than mandatory, that the defendant's choice to represent himself was properly allowed after inquiry, and that no error occurred in denying appointment of trial counsel for the appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in any of the assignments of error.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. McQueen, the defendant appealed his criminal convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictments due to the State's alleged failure to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (G.S. 15A-761 et seq.), by allowing certain cross-examination questions about his past actions, and by denying his motion to reopen the case for additional evidence after jury deliberations began. The court held that there was no reversible error in any of these rulings. It reasoned that the defendant had not followed the Act's required procedures by properly notifying the warden and sending the specified certificate and request via registered or certified mail, that the cross-examination questions were permissible and asked in good faith, and that the decision to reopen evidence was within the trial court's discretion with no abuse shown.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Grant v. Emmco Insurance centered on whether an automobile insurance policy covered a leased tractor involved in an accident, where the policy-designated Ford tractor was under repair and inoperable. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed. The court held that the policy's provisions extending coverage to 'newly acquired' vehicles that 'replace' a described vehicle were ambiguous as to the meaning of 'replace' and the timing of notice, requiring construction in favor of the insured. It reasoned that the leased tractor qualified as a replacement during the 30-day notice grace period because the original vehicle was not operable, and the complaint sufficiently alleged facts supporting coverage under notice pleading standards.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In State v. Pagano, the defendant appealed his criminal conviction, arguing errors in the trial court's jury instructions on the mother's testimony regarding his sanity, the admission of his statement to police without a proper finding on waiver of counsel, and the constitutionality of North Carolina's M'Naghten Rule for the insanity defense, which he claimed violated due process and should be replaced by the Model Penal Code test. The court overruled all assignments of error and found no basis for a new trial. It held that objections to the jury charge's summary of evidence must be raised before the jury retires or they are waived, that the trial court's findings on the voluntary waiver were supported by uncontradicted evidence and conclusive, and that the statement was not incriminating. The court reaffirmed its adherence to the M'Naghten Rule per longstanding precedent, noting that the burden of proof on insanity properly rests on the defendant and that the legal test focuses on the degree of mental defect recognized by state policy rather than the mere presence of illness.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Fulcher, the defendant appealed his convictions for crimes against nature and kidnapping, challenging the trial court's admission of booking photographs and a photographic lineup used by the victims to identify him, as well as certain jury instructions and the application of the kidnapping statute. The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed only the preserved assignments of error and determined that the photographs were properly admitted either to illustrate witness testimony or as substantive evidence of the pre-arrest identification process, with no due process violations or improper expressions of opinion by the trial judge. The court also upheld the kidnapping convictions under the literal terms of G.S. 14-39, noting that any policy concerns about overlapping offenses or minor asportations were matters for the legislature rather than judicial reinterpretation. It concluded there was no error in the proceedings below and affirmed the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Braxton, four defendants were each convicted of multiple counts of rape arising from a single incident in which they abducted and assaulted one victim as part of a common scheme, and each received a life sentence. On appeal, the defendants raised numerous assignments of error concerning the admission of evidence, denial of pretrial and trial motions, consolidation of their cases for joint trial, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that most assignments were either abandoned by not being briefed or lacked merit, that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in consolidating the cases under G.S. 15A-926 because the offenses were part of a common plan and each defendant aided and abetted the others, that codefendant statements were appropriately redacted to avoid Bruton violations, and that the evidence was sufficient to withstand motions for nonsuit. The court therefore found no error in any of the judgments and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners' revocation of a physician's license to practice medicine. After the doctor's 1974 felony conviction for submitting false insurance claims involving medical documents, the Board initially suspended revocation subject to conditions of good behavior and ethical practice; it later revoked the license upon evidence that he had improperly prescribed a controlled stimulant without any patient examination or history. The Superior Court and Supreme Court affirmed, finding the Board's decision supported by competent evidence of unprofessional conduct under G.S. 90-14 and rejecting unsubstantiated claims of racial bias in the proceedings.

criminal lawhealthcarecivil rightsprocedure

In State v. Schultz, the defendant was charged with three counts of felonious larceny for taking brass urns or vases from cemetery grave markers owned by a corporation. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for nonsuit and the jury convicted him after receiving instructions on the charges. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jury charge, when read as a whole, clearly required separate consideration of each indictment and that the urns constituted personal property rather than real property or chattels real. The court reasoned that the urns were easily removable, not integral to the markers or soil, and thus properly the subject of common-law larceny despite being sold as part of burial packages. It also noted that a related statute on monument removal did not preclude larceny liability here.

criminal lawproperty

The case involved the North Carolina State Ports Authority suing contractors, including general contractor Dickerson and subcontractor Scott, over leaks in roofs constructed on its buildings in 1967, with the action filed in 1973. The Superior Court dismissed the claims against Dickerson on the pleadings, finding them barred by the three-year statute of limitations, while the Court of Appeals addressed related dismissals including against Scott. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the action against Scott because the plaintiff was merely an incidental beneficiary of the subcontract with no direct claim, but reversed the dismissal against Dickerson, holding that the statute of limitations defense did not clearly appear on the face of the complaint so as to allow decision without further proof. The core reasoning distinguished contract claims from tort claims in construction contexts, noted that breach of contract ordinarily does not support a tort action by the promisee, and applied rules for when a limitations bar can be resolved on the pleadings alone versus requiring factual development.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

The case involved defendant Jasper David Looney, who was convicted of both conspiracy to commit murder and being an accessory before the fact to the murder of his wife. The court held that these are distinct offenses that do not merge and that neither is a lesser included offense of the other, allowing convictions and sentences for both. The reasoning centered on differing elements: conspiracy requires an agreement between parties, while accessory before the fact requires the principal to actually commit the crime but not necessarily an agreement; the actual commission is essential to accessory liability but not to conspiracy. The court also ruled there was no error in denying the defendant's motion for a pretrial psychiatric examination of the state's key witness, who had already undergone one and whose credibility issues could be addressed through other evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the appeal of a defendant convicted of murder and armed robbery in North Carolina. The defendant raised multiple assignments of error regarding the trial court's rulings on directed verdicts, cross-examination limits, witness testimony on reputation, prosecutorial statements, and jury instructions. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the charges, that any potential errors were not prejudicial or were properly addressed by the trial judge, and that the prosecutor's arguments were within permissible bounds based on the evidence. Consequently, the court held there was no error in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree rape under a North Carolina statute that mandated the death penalty, with the defendant also raising issues about sentencing procedures, his age at the time of the offense, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. The court held that the death sentence must be vacated and replaced with life imprisonment, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Woodson v. North Carolina that struck down mandatory capital punishment, as implemented by state law. It determined that Articles 3A and 3B of Chapter 148 did not apply to convictions carrying mandatory death or life sentences, that the record showed no basis for an insanity defense or prejudice from counsel's performance, and that the trial proceedings were not rendered unfair. The case was remanded to impose the life sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether North Carolina's Open Meetings Law required meetings of the University of North Carolina School of Law faculty and its committees to be open to the public, including students, and whether the faculty had to provide advance public notice of such meetings. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the statute does not impose any notice requirement on covered bodies and that the law does not apply to law school faculty meetings. The court reasoned that the statute's text limits its reach to governing and governmental bodies that act as bodies politic in the public interest, and extending it to faculty deliberations would produce illogical results, such as requiring openness for athletic strategy sessions or other internal academic matters. The court distinguished the facts from cases in other states and noted provisions allowing closed sessions for certain student-related issues.

procedure

The case State v. Shaw concerned a defendant charged with first-degree rape and taking indecent liberties with a child under North Carolina statutes. The court affirmed the conviction and life sentence for rape, determining that the child's testimony provided sufficient evidence of penetration and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in finding the child competent to testify. However, the court arrested judgment on the indecent liberties conviction, reasoning that this offense is necessarily included within the rape charge, as the acts overlap, and thus sentencing on both would constitute double punishment for the same conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant's appeal from a conviction for first-degree burglary, where the victim identified him as her assailant after a struggle in her home. The court reviewed claims that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on lesser included offenses, by sustaining an objection to a cross-examination question about the strength of the state's case, and by declining to reopen voir dire on the victim's identification testimony after learning of her cataracts. The court held there was no error in any of these rulings. It reasoned that the evidence presented only the charged offense or an alibi with no basis for lesser verdicts, that the excluded question was argumentative rather than probative, and that any vision impairment went to the credibility of the identification rather than its admissibility given the witness's long familiarity with the defendant. The conviction was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Jones, the defendant appealed her conviction for the murder of her child, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting statements she made to police during custodial interrogation and in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of insanity. The court held that the statements were properly admitted because the defendant had been advised of her Miranda rights multiple times, had knowingly and voluntarily waived them, and was not in custody for her initial statement, as supported by the trial judge's findings of fact. It further held that no insanity instruction was required because the record contained no evidence of mental disease or defect affecting the defendant's ability to know the nature and quality of her acts or to distinguish right from wrong. The court also found that the admission of a recorded conversation between the defendant and her father, even if improperly obtained, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the other properly admitted confessions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the trial of defendants Kirkman and Hawks for the first-degree murder of Clayton Gravely during a robbery, resulting in life sentences after the death penalty provisions were invalidated. Following jury impanelment, the court allowed the state to exercise a peremptory challenge against a seated juror who had an undisclosed connection to defendant Hawks' wife, replacing her with an alternate over the defendants' objection and denial of their mistrial motion. The court held that the trial judge retains discretion to reopen juror examination and allow challenges after impanelment to ensure an impartial jury, citing prior precedents under G.S. 9-21(b). Additional challenges regarding hearsay testimony, a variance between the robbery indictment and proof (on which judgment was arrested), and the imposition of life imprisonment under the 1973 amendments to G.S. 14-17 in light of Woodson v. North Carolina were rejected as meritless.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant Willard's appeal from his conviction for the murder of Barbara Evans, based primarily on the testimony of accomplice Randall Tolbert. The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed multiple assignments of error, including the denial of a motion to sequester witnesses, motions for nonsuit, a motion to set aside the verdict, and alleged inaccuracies or expressions of opinion in the trial court's jury instructions on evidence and alibi. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in procedural rulings, that the State's evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury, and that any issues with the charge to the jury were either not preserved or lacked merit under applicable precedents. It therefore found no error and affirmed the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a defendant's appeal from a conviction for second-degree rape and a life sentence, where he challenged the denial of motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence, the admission of the victim's in-court identification, and the denial of motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court held that there was no error in any of the trial court's rulings. It reasoned that the state's evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to it, was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court had properly conducted a voir dire hearing to confirm the reliability of the identification evidence before admitting it. The court further noted that motions to set aside the verdict are discretionary and that motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict are not proper or are governed by the same standards as nonsuit motions in criminal cases, with no abuse of discretion shown here.

criminal lawprocedure