Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Andre Lester was charged and convicted of multiple sex offenses with a minor. At trial, the State presented Verizon phone records to link Lester to the crimes. Exhibit #2 showed the time, date, and connecting number for every call made to or from the phone allegedly belonging to Lester. Exhibit #3 featured a subset of that data, showing communications between Lester’s phone and the victim’s phone. Lester argued that the admission of these exhibits violated the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules because he could not cross-examine the source of the data.The Superior Court of Wake County admitted the exhibits under Rule 803(24), the catch-all hearsay exception, despite acknowledging that they did not meet the business records exception under Rule 803(6). The jury convicted Lester on all counts, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the admission of the exhibits violated the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules, and ordered a new trial.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and found that the Court of Appeals misapplied the Confrontation Clause analysis. The Supreme Court held that machine-generated raw data, if truly machine-generated, are neither hearsay nor testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. The Court emphasized that the primary purpose test should focus on why the data were created, not why they were later retrieved. The Court concluded that if Verizon’s systems recorded the data as part of routine operations, the data were not created for use in a trial. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of Lester’s remaining issues. View "State v. Lester" on Justia Law

In August 1998, a 17-year-old defendant, a member of the Crips gang, participated in the abduction, robbery, and murder of three women, resulting in the death of two and the attempted murder of the third. The defendant was arrested and indicted on multiple charges, including two counts of first-degree murder. In 2000, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to death. The North Carolina Supreme Court vacated the death sentence due to a jury polling error and remanded for resentencing. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Roper v. Simmons, which prohibited the death penalty for juveniles, the defendant was resentenced to life without parole.The trial court later resentenced the defendant under a new statutory scheme following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, which prohibited mandatory life without parole for juveniles. The trial court considered mitigating factors and sentenced the defendant to two consecutive life without parole terms, finding him irreparably corrupt. The defendant appealed, arguing that his sentences violated the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution.The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences, finding that the trial court properly considered all mitigating factors and that the sentences complied with both federal and state constitutional requirements. The court rejected the defendant's argument that his sentences were unconstitutional per se and found that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion of irreparable corruption.The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the state constitution's prohibition on cruel or unusual punishments does not provide broader protections than the Eighth Amendment. The court also found that the trial court's resentencing did not violate the principles established in State v. Kelliher. View "State v. Tirado" on Justia Law

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

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

The defendant was convicted in District Court, Buncombe County, of driving while impaired (DWI), reckless driving, possession of marijuana, and possession of marijuana paraphernalia. The court found an aggravating factor but balanced it with a mitigating factor, sentencing the defendant to Level IV punishment, which included 120 days of imprisonment (suspended), twelve months of supervised probation, seven days in custody, a $100 fine, and court costs. The defendant appealed to the Superior Court, Buncombe County, where a jury found him guilty of DWI and reckless driving but acquitted him of the other charges. The superior court judge found three aggravating factors and imposed Level III punishment, which included six months of imprisonment (suspended), thirty-six months of supervised probation, three days in custody, a $500 fine, and court costs.The defendant appealed the superior court's judgment, arguing that the trial court erred by finding aggravating factors without a jury. The Court of Appeals agreed, citing Blakely v. Washington, and held that the trial judge's finding of aggravating factors violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The court noted that the General Assembly amended the DWI sentencing statute in 2006 to require that juries, not judges, find aggravating factors. The Court of Appeals majority concluded that resentencing is required whenever a trial judge finds aggravating factors in violation of the statute, regardless of whether the error was harmless.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to apply harmless error review to the trial judge's finding of aggravating factors. The Supreme Court concluded that the finding of aggravating factors by a trial judge contrary to N.C.G.S. § 20-179(a1)(2) does not constitute reversible error if the error was harmless. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for a determination of whether the error was harmless. The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and remanded. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

Petitioner was sentenced to multiple consecutive terms of imprisonment in 2019 for obtaining property by false pretenses. In June 2020, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming his detention was unlawful due to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety's inability to protect him from COVID-19, which he argued violated the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution. The trial court denied his petition.The Superior Court of Wake County summarily denied the petition, citing N.C.G.S. § 17-4(2), which mandates denial of habeas corpus applications when the petitioner is held under a valid final judgment by a competent court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but held that N.C.G.S. § 17-33(2) provided an exception to the rule in § 17-4(2). Despite acknowledging the case was moot due to the petitioner's release, the Court of Appeals applied the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and proceeded to the merits.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case to determine if the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of N.C.G.S. § 17-4(2) requires summary denial of habeas corpus applications for those detained by a final judgment of a competent court. The Court found no conflict between §§ 17-4 and 17-33, as the latter applies only to those detained by civil process, not criminal judgments. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, emphasizing that habeas corpus relief is not available under the circumstances presented by the petitioner. View "State v. Daw" on Justia Law

Between December 2012 and March 2015, the defendant met several women, including A.C., H.M., A.B., and M.F., and supplied them with heroin, leading to their addiction. The defendant used heroin to coerce the women into prostitution, which he and his wife arranged through online advertisements on Backpage. The women paid the defendant for heroin and basic needs, often more than the heroin's worth. The defendant withheld drugs, food, sleep, and communication means from the women, occasionally locking them in his basement or hotel rooms. He transported the women across North Carolina and to other states for prostitution.The defendant was indicted and convicted of multiple counts of human trafficking, promoting prostitution, conspiracy to promote prostitution, and attaining habitual felon status. The trial court sentenced him to 240 to 312 years in prison and required him to register as a sex offender. The defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a divided opinion finding no error in the trial court's judgments. The dissenting judge argued that human trafficking is a continuing offense and that the defendant should only be convicted of a single count of human trafficking per victim.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the statutory language of N.C.G.S. § 14-43.11 is clear and unambiguous, allowing for multiple counts of human trafficking per victim. Each distinct act of recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing, or obtaining a victim constitutes a separate offense. The court also found that the trial court erred in calculating the defendant's prior record level but concluded that this error did not prejudice the defendant, as his federal firearms conviction is substantially similar to a Class G felony in North Carolina. View "State v. Applewhite" on Justia Law

Travis Davenport was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon and first-degree murder of Mike Griffin. The evidence showed that Davenport and Griffin had a tumultuous relationship, culminating in a physical altercation. On the night before Griffin's murder, Davenport was seen at Griffin's home, and they exchanged several phone calls. The next morning, Griffin was found dead with multiple stab wounds, and his wallet and phone were missing. Davenport was later arrested, and another inmate testified that Davenport confessed to killing Griffin to steal $10,000 from him.In Superior Court, Martin County, Davenport's motion to dismiss the robbery charge was denied, and he was convicted of both charges. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the State had not presented substantial evidence for the robbery charge and that the admission of evidence regarding Davenport's prior incarceration, gang affiliation, and tattoos constituted plain error. The appellate court also found that a hearsay statement, "Dianne to the house," was inadmissible.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the State had presented substantial evidence for each element of the robbery with a dangerous weapon charge and Davenport's identity as the perpetrator. The Court also ruled that the admission of evidence related to Davenport's prior incarceration, gang affiliation, and tattoos did not amount to plain error, as it did not prejudice the jury's decision. Lastly, the Court determined that the statement "Dianne to the house" was admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. View "State v. Davenport" on Justia Law

On April 4, 2021, Latoyna Dunlap approached Angela Benita Phillips' home, believing Phillips had complained about her to their landlord. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts of Dunlap's demeanor and the events that followed. A confrontation ensued, during which Phillips either slapped Dunlap or struck her with a gun. Phillips then fired multiple shots at Dunlap, one of which caused severe injuries. Phillips was arrested and indicted for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. At trial, Phillips claimed self-defense and defense of habitation, requesting relevant jury instructions.The Superior Court of Cumberland County, presided over by Judge James F. Ammons, Jr., expressed concerns about the castle doctrine instruction, suggesting it might allow excessive force. The court modified the instruction to include a prohibition on excessive force, despite objections from Phillips' counsel. The jury found Phillips guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and she was sentenced to 25 to 42 months in prison. Phillips appealed the decision.The North Carolina Court of Appeals, in a divided panel, vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, agreeing with Phillips that the trial court's instruction on excessive force was erroneous and confusing. The majority held that under the castle doctrine, excessive force is impossible unless the State rebuts the presumption of reasonable fear. One judge dissented, arguing that the statutory castle doctrine defense aligns with common law defenses, including the prohibition against excessive force.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and clarified the castle doctrine. The court held that the statutory presumption of reasonable fear under the castle doctrine can only be rebutted by specific circumstances listed in the statute. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding of instructional error but vacated its prejudice determination, remanding for proper consideration of whether the error prejudiced Phillips. View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Joshua Reber, who was convicted for sexually abusing a young child. The child, K.W., testified in detail about the abuse, which began when she was eight years old. Reber admitted to taking K.W. into the woods alone at night without informing anyone but denied any sexual abuse. During his testimony, Reber also discussed his normal sexual relationships with adult women. The prosecutor cross-examined Reber about his text messages with a woman named Danielle, which indicated sexual encounters. Reber did not object to these questions.The jury found Reber guilty, and he was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 300 to 420 months in prison. Reber appealed, arguing that the admission of his cross-examination testimony and the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments were errors. The Court of Appeals reversed Reber’s convictions, holding that the introduction of the challenged evidence on cross-examination amounted to plain error and that the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument were so grossly improper that the trial court should have intervened on its own initiative.The Supreme Court of North Carolina disagreed with the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the admission of the cross-examination testimony was not plain error and that the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments were not so grossly improper that the trial court should have intervened. The court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of Reber’s remaining arguments. View "State v. Reber" on Justia Law