Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the early morning of December 2, 2016, Dwayne Garvey and April Holland were shot and killed at a Raleigh hotel. Surveillance footage showed two men, later identified as the defendant and Brandon Hill, entering the hotel and committing the murders. The defendant was arrested the next day, and text messages linked him to the crime. The defendant was indicted on two counts of first-degree murder, and the State sought the death penalty.A Wake County jury found the defendant guilty of both counts of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to death on March 4, 2019. The defendant appealed, raising several issues, including the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence, jury instructions, and challenges during jury selection.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and addressed each issue raised by the defendant. The court found that the trial court did not err in admitting Rule 404(b) evidence of prior acts against other victims, as it was relevant to show a common scheme or plan. The court also found no error in the jury instructions or the challenges for cause during jury selection. The court concluded that the defendant received a fair trial free from error and affirmed the trial court's judgment and death sentence. View "State v. Gillard" on Justia Law

Restaurants in North Carolina were forced to suspend operations due to COVID-19-related government orders. Each restaurant had a commercial property insurance policy with Cincinnati Insurance Company, which covered business income from any "direct physical loss" to property. The dispute centered on whether the government orders constituted a "direct physical loss" under the policy.The Superior Court of Durham County sided with the restaurants, granting partial summary judgment in their favor, finding that the losses were covered under the policy. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, interpreting the insurance contract to exclude such losses and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for the defendants.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeals. The court held that a reasonable policyholder could expect "direct physical loss" to include the effects of COVID-19 government orders that restricted the use of and access to the restaurants' physical property. The court noted that the policy did not exclude viruses and construed the ambiguity in favor of coverage. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "North State Deli, LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A developer, Schooldev East, LLC, proposed to build a charter school in the Town of Wake Forest and applied for major subdivision and site plan permits. The proposed site was a 35-acre parcel within a larger tract of land. The developer's plans included constructing a multi-use path to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to nearby areas. The Town's planning board and board of commissioners (BOC) held hearings and ultimately denied the applications, citing non-compliance with the Town's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements for pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to surrounding residential areas.The Superior Court of Wake County affirmed the BOC's decision, concluding that the developer failed to demonstrate compliance with the UDO and that the Town's requirements were not preempted by state law. The Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, also affirmed the Superior Court's ruling, agreeing that the developer did not meet its burden of production to show entitlement to the permits.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and determined that the UDO provision in question was unclear regarding whether it required connectivity to all surrounding residential areas. The Court held that any ambiguity in land use ordinances should be resolved in favor of the free use of property. The Court concluded that the developer had presented competent, material, and substantial evidence of compliance with the UDO by proposing a multi-use path that provided access to a public park and a future residential subdivision. As no evidence was presented in opposition, the BOC had no basis to deny the applications. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case with instructions for the Town to approve the developer's applications. View "Schooldev East, LLC v. Town of Wake Forest" on Justia Law

Patricia Burnette Chastain was appointed as the clerk of superior court in Franklin County in May 2013 and was subsequently elected to the position in November 2013 and reelected in 2017. In July 2020, an attorney named Jeffrey Thompson filed an affidavit requesting an inquiry into Ms. Chastain's conduct, alleging various instances of misconduct, including distributing gift certificates to jurors, allowing a judicial candidate to address a jury, and acting unprofessionally with correctional officers, among other allegations.Judge John M. Dunlow initially suspended Ms. Chastain and set a hearing date. However, due to a conflict of interest, Judge Dunlow and another judge were recused, and Judge Thomas H. Lock was appointed to preside over the removal inquiry. After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Lock issued an order in October 2020 permanently removing Ms. Chastain from her position based on findings of willful misconduct. Ms. Chastain appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the order, holding that Judge Lock lacked authority under Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution to remove her and remanded the case for reconsideration under Article VI.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that Judge Lock had the authority to preside over the removal proceeding as a replacement for the recused senior regular resident superior court judge. The court also held that procedural due process requires that removal be based only on conduct identified in the initiating affidavit. Furthermore, the court clarified that the standard for removal under Article IV is "misconduct," not "willful misconduct." The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for reconsideration of removal under the proper standards. The court also noted that discretionary review was improvidently allowed regarding the procedure for disqualification under Article VI. View "In re Chastain" on Justia Law

Deputies from the Caswell County Sheriff’s Office stopped an SUV on suspicion of contraband being thrown over a prison yard wall. The search revealed drugs hidden in footballs, leading to the arrest of the defendant, who was charged with multiple offenses, including possession with intent to sell or distribute drugs and attempting to provide contraband to an inmate. While in custody, the defendant was involved in an altercation and was charged with assaulting a government employee and communicating threats. His court-appointed counsel filed a motion questioning his competency to stand trial, which was granted, but the evaluation was never completed as the defendant posted bond and was released.The Superior Court of Caswell County, presided over by Judge Edwin G. Wilson Jr., did not conduct a competency hearing before the trial. The defendant did not raise the issue of competency at trial, and the jury found him guilty on four of seven charges. The defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by not determining his competency. The Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, found no error, holding that the defendant waived his statutory right to a competency hearing by not asserting it at trial.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court held that the defendant waived his statutory right to a competency hearing by failing to assert it in a timely manner and by acting inconsistently with a purpose to insist upon it. The court distinguished between the waivable statutory right and the non-waivable constitutional right to a competency hearing, concluding that the defendant’s conduct indicated he was competent and ready to proceed with the trial. View "State v. Wilkins" on Justia Law

Philip Morris USA, Inc. (Philip Morris) disputed with the North Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) over tax credits for manufacturing cigarettes for exportation (Export Credits). The issue was whether the "credit allowed" in N.C.G.S. § 105-130.45(b) (2003) limited the Export Credits such that they could not be carried forward to future years.The Department audited Philip Morris' tax returns for 2012-2014 and disallowed the Export Credits claimed, arguing that the statute capped the credits generated each year at six million dollars, thus no credits were available to carry forward. Philip Morris objected and requested a review, but the Department upheld the disallowance. Philip Morris then petitioned the Office of Administrative Hearings, where the administrative law judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Department. Philip Morris appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the ALJ's decision, stating that the statute limited credit generation to six million dollars per year.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and found the statute ambiguous. The Court held that the term "credit allowed" in subsection (b) should be interpreted as "credit generated," allowing any generated Export Credit in excess of the annual cap to be carried forward for the next ten years. The Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Department and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

Martin B. Sturdivant, an employee of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, sustained a back injury while working as a corrections officer. The injury led to chronic back pain, and Sturdivant received temporary total disability payments through the workers' compensation system. As he approached the 500-week limit for these payments, he applied for extended compensation, claiming a total loss of wage-earning capacity.The North Carolina Industrial Commission denied Sturdivant's claim, concluding that he had not sustained a total loss of wage-earning capacity. The Commission interpreted this phrase to mean a total loss of the ability to earn wages in any employment. Sturdivant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which rejected the Commission's interpretation. The Court of Appeals held that "total loss of wage-earning capacity" was synonymous with "total disability," incorporating a broader legal test.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the phrase "total loss of wage-earning capacity" means the complete elimination of the capacity to earn any wages. The Court clarified that this phrase does not share the same legal meaning as "total disability." The Court found that the Industrial Commission's interpretation was correct and that the Commission's findings were supported by competent evidence. The Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals' opinion to reject its statutory interpretation but otherwise affirmed the decision. View "Sturdivant v. Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

The case involves the father of a four-year-old child, Katy, who was initially placed with him by the Durham County Department of Social Services (DSS) after her mother, who had custody, was found to have substance abuse issues. DSS later discovered the father had a significant criminal history and was arrested for assault. Consequently, DSS recommended placing Katy with her paternal aunt and uncle, which the trial court approved. The trial court also found that both parents acted inconsistently with their constitutional rights as parents, although neither parent raised a constitutional claim during the trial.The Court of Appeals reviewed the case and, in a divided opinion, reversed the trial court's decision. The majority held that the trial court lacked authority to place Katy with anyone other than her father, as there were no allegations or findings that he was unfit or had acted inconsistently with his constitutional rights. The majority also ruled that the constitutional issue was preserved for appellate review because the father opposed DSS's recommendation. The dissent argued that the trial court's findings on the constitutional standard were premature and unnecessary.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and focused on whether the constitutional issue was properly preserved for appellate review. The Court held that a parent must explicitly raise a constitutional claim in the trial court to preserve it for appeal. Since the father conceded he did not argue the issue as a constitutional violation in the trial court, the Supreme Court determined the issue was not preserved. Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, emphasizing the need for parents to inform the trial court and opposing parties of any constitutional challenges to ensure proper evidence is presented. View "In re K.C." on Justia Law

A child, referred to as Liam, suffered severe injuries at one month old, including multiple fractures and bruises, while in the care of his parents. The Onslow County Department of Social Services (DSS) took custody of Liam, who now requires extensive medical care due to cerebral palsy and other conditions resulting from the abuse. Liam was placed with foster parents, Daniel and Jessica Hall, who have provided him with a stable and nurturing environment. Liam's maternal grandfather expressed interest in custody but admitted he could not provide the necessary care.The District Court of Onslow County adjudicated Liam as abused and neglected and held multiple permanency-planning hearings. The court ultimately awarded custody to the Halls, finding that reunification with the parents was not in Liam's best interest due to their inability to explain his injuries and the mother's failure to participate in his medical care. The court also considered but did not find the maternal grandfather a suitable caretaker.The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order, finding the trial court's findings insufficient under relevant statutory provisions. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new hearing.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings were sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements, including considerations of the child's best interests and the feasibility of reunification. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order awarding custody to the Halls and converting the case to a Chapter 50 civil custody proceeding. View "In re L.L." on Justia Law

A clothing retailer, Cato Corporation, with over 1,300 stores, purchased an "all-risk" commercial property insurance policy from Zurich American Insurance Company in July 2019. In the spring of 2020, Cato alleged that the COVID-19 virus and related government orders forced it to close or severely curtail operations, causing significant revenue losses and expenses for remediation and reconfiguration of its stores. Cato sought coverage for these losses under its insurance policy, but Zurich refused, leading Cato to file a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for breach of contract and violations of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.The Superior Court of Mecklenburg County dismissed Cato's claims on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, relying on the Court of Appeals' decision in North State Deli, LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding that tangible alteration to the property was necessary to recover for a "direct physical loss of or damage" to property, which Cato failed to allege sufficiently.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm the dismissal but disagreed with its reasoning. The Supreme Court concluded that Cato sufficiently alleged a "direct physical loss of or damage" to property under the precedent set in North State Deli. However, the Court found that the viral contamination exclusion in Cato's policy precluded coverage for the alleged losses. Therefore, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals' decision but affirmed its judgment dismissing Cato's claims. View "Cato Corp. v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law