Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Khuram Choudhry was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry pertaining to defense counsel's possible conflict of interest arising from counsel's prior representation of a State's witness. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, holding (1) although the trial court heard argument from the prosecutor and from defense counsel on this issue and made direct inquiry of Defendant after placing him under oath, under the facts of this case, the inquiry was insufficient to assure that Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made his decision regarding counsel's continued representation; but (2) Defendant failed to make a threshold showing that defense counsel's performance was adversely affected by the conflict, much less that Defendant was prejudiced by the representation.View "State v. Choudhry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for trafficking in cocaine by possession, trafficking in cocaine by transportation, possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, and carrying a concealed gun. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle during a search that was conducted only after officers had arrested him for carrying a concealed gun and placed him in a police car. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that it was not reasonable for the arresting officers to believe Defendant's vehicle contained evidence of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals with instructions to reinstate the trial court's decision, holding that the search of Defendant's vehicle was constitutionally permissible under Arizona v. Gant, and the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion for relief. View "State v. Mbacke" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Thomas Starr was convicted of four counts of assaulting a firefighter with a firearm. Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to follow the procedures of N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1233 when it denied the jury's request to review the testimony of one of the firefighters involved in the incident. The court of appeals held that because the trial court instructed the jurors to rely on their recollection of the evidence, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the jury's request. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, holding (1) the trial court in this instance violated section 15A-1233 by failing to exercise its discretion, and the error was preserved by operation of law for appellate review; but (2) Defendant did not carry his burden of proving that the error was prejudicial. View "State v. Starr" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine and sale of cocaine and pled guilty to habitual felon status. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss and vacated Defendant's convictions, concluding that in the absence of expert testimony as to the chemical analysis of the substance, the evidence was insufficient to prove an essential element of the crime, namely, that the substance was a controlled substance. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the testimony of Defendant's witness, which identified the substance as cocaine, provided evidence of a controlled substance sufficient to withstand Defendant's motion to dismiss. View "State v. Nabors" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Mario Phillips guilty of four counts of first-degree murder. The jury also found defendant guilty of first-degree kidnapping, attempted first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, robbery with a firearm, and first-degree arson. Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury recommended a sentence of death for each murder conviction. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that (1) the trial court erred in regard to several pretrial matters such as denying defendant's motion to suppress and denying him effective assistance of counsel; (2) the trial court erred in regard to several matters during the trial such as admitting certain testimony and not intervening during the state's closing argument; (3) the trial court erred in regard to certain sentencing proceeding matters such as failing to intervene during the state's closing argument; and (4) the trial court erred in regard to several preservation issues. The Supreme Court overruled each assignment of error. The Court concluded that the defendant received a fair trial and capital sentencing proceeding and that the death sentence imposed by the trial court was not disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. No error.View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Defendant Benzion Biber was indicted for felonious possession of cocaine. Prior to trial defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court's ruling on his suppression motion was erroneous in that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for constructive possession of the powdery substance found in his motel room and thus evidence of the crack rocks for which defendant was convicted should be excluded as the fruit of an unlawful seizure. The court of appeals reversed. At issue was whether the trial court was correct in implicitly concluding that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, holding (1) the trial court's findings of fact supported probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of a controlled substance, and (2) the appellate court majority utilized an incorrect evidentiary standard to determine probable cause.View "State v. Biber" on Justia Law