Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a defendant who was observed by law enforcement in the parking lot of a hotel known for illegal activity. The officer identified the defendant as the owner of a station wagon and a convicted felon with outstanding arrest warrants. Upon seeing the officers, the defendant refused to exit his vehicle and attempted to hide items, then fled at high speed, leading police on a dangerous chase before crashing and fleeing on foot. After his arrest, officers found a holster in the car and, following a search, discovered a loaded .38 Special revolver hidden behind a loose dashboard panel. The gun was determined to be stolen. The defendant was charged with fleeing to elude arrest, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of a stolen firearm.At trial in the Superior Court of Brunswick County, the defendant moved to dismiss the firearm charges for insufficient evidence, arguing that the State had not shown he knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the gun was stolen. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury convicted the defendant on all charges. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence—specifically the defendant’s flight, the gun’s concealment, and his misrepresentations about the firearm—was sufficient for a rational juror to infer knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe the gun was stolen. A dissenting judge disagreed, viewing the evidence as insufficient on the knowledge element.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the issue of whether substantial evidence supported the defendant’s knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe the firearm was stolen. The Supreme Court held that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence presented met the substantial evidence standard, and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the denial of the motion to dismiss. View "State v. Bracey" on Justia Law

The case involves a fatal shooting that occurred outside the defendant’s residence, where the defendant admitted to shooting and killing Brandon Adams. The incident unfolded after Adams, following a dispute with his girlfriend, Pamela Rodgers, went to the defendant’s home. Tensions escalated between Adams and Rodgers, leading the defendant to ask Adams to leave. Later, after a series of confrontational encounters and threatening messages from Adams, Adams attempted to force his way into the defendant’s home. The defendant, after a physical struggle at the doorway and observing Adams make a sudden movement, fatally shot Adams. The defendant was subsequently charged and went to trial, asserting a defense under North Carolina’s castle doctrine.A jury in the Superior Court of Burke County convicted the defendant of second-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 144 to 185 months in prison. At trial, the defendant requested an instruction on the castle doctrine. The trial court gave a pattern instruction on defense of habitation but did not instruct the jury that the curtilage of the home is protected under the statute. The jury also received instructions that allowed it to consider the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief in imminent harm and the necessity of the force used.On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found no error, holding that the State presented substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of reasonable fear and that the jury instruction was proper.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case to clarify the correct application of the castle doctrine statute, specifically whether the statutory presumption of reasonable fear could be rebutted by circumstances not listed in N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2(c). The Supreme Court held that the statutory presumption may only be rebutted by the five circumstances enumerated in the statute. Because the jury instructions failed to reflect this, and likely affected the trial’s outcome, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Allison" on Justia Law

The case involved a business owner who operated an event rental company in Asheville, North Carolina. On May 17, 2021, while driving a company vehicle with an employee as a passenger, the owner encountered a man who was locally known for panhandling with his cat, Thomas, usually in a stroller. After a brief interaction in which the driver harassed the man by flicking a golf ball at him, the driver drove onto a grassy area and struck the stroller with the cat inside. Witnesses saw the incident, and the cat was shaken but not physically harmed. Police investigation soon focused on the event rental company’s trucks and driver records. When asked by police about driver documentation, the owner first denied having records, then claimed ignorance about who drove the truck, and eventually law enforcement discovered that the physical copy of the key scheduling document for May 17 was missing, though a digital copy was later found on the owner’s phone.The Superior Court in Buncombe County denied the defendant’s motions to dismiss charges of felony obstruction of justice and felony cruelty to animals. The jury found him guilty on both counts. On appeal, a divided panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding there was sufficient evidence to submit both charges to the jury. The majority used a “knew or should have known” standard for the cruelty to animals charge, while the dissent argued the obstruction charge should have been dismissed due to lack of legal obligation to retain documents and absence of effective obstruction.The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the lower courts’ denial of the motions to dismiss, holding that substantial evidence supported both charges. Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that the felony cruelty to animals statute requires proof of actual knowledge—not just what the defendant should have known—regarding the presence of an animal. The Court modified the Court of Appeals’ analysis accordingly but affirmed the result. View "State v. Ford" on Justia Law

A forty-year-old man was convicted by a jury of three counts of taking indecent liberties with a thirteen-year-old girl. The charges stemmed from separate instances on a single morning: kissing the girl on the neck outside his van, kissing her on the mouth inside the van, and kissing her on the mouth a second time inside the van—these last two kisses were separated by a six-to-seven-minute interval during which the defendant and the girl engaged in conversation and joking. The defendant denied any sexual acts beyond kissing, while the girl and two neighbors who witnessed parts of the encounter provided differing accounts. The jury acquitted the defendant of additional charges, including statutory sex offenses and kidnapping.Following conviction in Wake County Superior Court, the defendant appealed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, concluded that the three kisses did not constitute three sufficiently distinct acts to support three separate convictions for indecent liberties with a child. The appellate court reasoned that only two acts were distinct enough—those occurring outside the van and the first inside the van—so it reversed one conviction, remanded for judgment to be arrested on that count, and ordered resentencing. The dissent argued that all three acts were sufficiently separate for conviction.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. It held that the lower appellate court erred in drawing a threshold distinction between “touching” and “sexual acts” and by applying the wrong legal test for multiplicity. Instead, the Supreme Court clarified that the correct standard is whether a “distinct interruption” occurred between acts. Applying this test, it held that the six-to-seven-minute interval between the two kisses inside the van was sufficient to constitute separate acts. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinstating all three convictions. View "State v. Calderon" on Justia Law

A seventeen-year-old defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery, arising from the killings of two victims in August 2001. After pleading guilty to all charges in 2004, he was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life without parole for the murders, as well as concurrent sentences for the robbery and conspiracy convictions. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, the defendant sought resentencing, and his case eventually returned to the trial court for resentencing under North Carolina’s Miller-fix statute.After multiple appeals, including a key decision by the Supreme Court of North Carolina (Kelliher I) holding that consecutive life with parole sentences for juvenile offenders violating North Carolina’s constitution, the trial court was instructed to enter two concurrent sentences of life with parole for the murder charges. On remand, the trial court imposed two concurrent life with parole sentences for murder, but also ordered the sentences for the robbery convictions to run consecutively to the murder sentences. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court exceeded the scope of the Supreme Court’s mandate. The North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed and remanded with instructions for the resentencing court to only change the murder sentences from consecutive to concurrent.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that its prior mandate in Kelliher I required only that the murder sentences be made concurrent, leaving the resentencing court with de novo authority over the remaining convictions. The court concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in running the robbery sentences consecutively, so long as the total sentence complied with the forty-year limitation established in Kelliher I. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the 31 March 2023 judgments were reinstated. View "State v. Kelliher" on Justia Law

In 2023, Charlotte Chemuti was arrested by officers from the Mooresville Police Department for resisting a public officer. To prepare for her trial, Chemuti served a subpoena on the police department requesting body camera footage related to her arrest. The Town of Mooresville responded, arguing that the requested recordings were confidential under North Carolina General Statute § 132-1.4A and could only be released through the procedure outlined in that statute, not by subpoena.Chemuti subsequently filed a motion in the District Court of Iredell County, without notice to the town, seeking release of the recordings. The district court granted her request, finding that while the statutory petition in superior court was the generally accepted practice, it was not the exclusive method for obtaining such evidence, and ordered the town to comply with the subpoena. The town appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, concluding that the order did not affect a substantial right. The town then petitioned the Supreme Court of North Carolina for review.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that orders compelling disclosure of information protected by statutory confidentiality are immediately appealable, and the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. On the merits, the Supreme Court determined that N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A provides the exclusive procedure for obtaining law enforcement recordings in criminal cases, requiring a petition in superior court, and that district court subpoenas cannot be used to compel their release. The Court further held that this procedure does not violate constitutional rights to present a complete defense, as courts must still ensure defendants’ constitutional protections. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Chemuti" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers investigated a breaking and entering at a market in Fletcher, North Carolina, where cash, cigarettes, and lottery tickets were stolen. Days later, someone attempted to redeem one of the stolen lottery tickets at a store in Edneyville. Security footage showed a woman leaving the store and entering a black Dodge Durango with distinctive features. Detective Diaz traced the vehicle to a nearby residence, discovered it had a fictitious license plate, and observed items inside the vehicle that appeared related to the theft. Officers later conducted a search of the vehicle and the residence, recovering stolen property and tools linked to the crime.The Superior Court of Henderson County denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, which argued that law enforcement’s observations at the residence and of the vehicle were improper without a warrant. The defendant subsequently pled guilty to several charges but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that probable cause existed for the search warrant and that officers acted lawfully at the scene. The majority also found that the inevitable discovery doctrine would apply, while a dissenting judge disagreed on both points.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that, even excluding information obtained during the contested “knock and talk,” the remaining facts in the warrant affidavit established probable cause to search the vehicle. The Court did not decide whether the officers’ conduct during the knock and talk was unconstitutional, nor did it address the inevitable discovery doctrine. The Court modified and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the search warrant was properly issued based on probable cause supported by untainted evidence. View "State v. Norman" on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted on multiple charges, including two counts of first-degree murder, stemming from an armed robbery in which two victims were killed and another was left paralyzed. During jury selection at his trial in Cleveland County Superior Court, the State used peremptory challenges to excuse two black female prospective jurors. The defense objected, raising a Batson challenge and arguing that the State’s strikes were racially discriminatory. The trial court heard arguments from both sides, including the State’s race-neutral explanations for the strikes, and ultimately denied the Batson challenge, finding no prima facie case of discrimination.Following his conviction on all charges and sentencing to consecutive life terms plus additional imprisonment, the defendant appealed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, found that the trial court had moved past Batson’s first step by soliciting and hearing the State’s race-neutral reasons before ruling. The majority held that this rendered the first step moot and remanded the case for a new Batson hearing under the procedural requirements established in State v. Hobbs, 374 N.C. 345 (2020). The dissent argued that the trial court had not actually proceeded to Batson’s third step and that the first step was not moot.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Batson’s first step moot and remanding for a new hearing. The Supreme Court held that the mootness exception to Batson’s three-step process is to be applied cautiously and only when the trial court has fully completed all three steps. Because the trial court had clearly ruled at step one and had not proceeded to step three, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for consideration of whether the trial court’s step-one determination was clearly erroneous. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Law enforcement in New Hanover County received information from a confidential source that the defendant was trafficking and distributing large quantities of cocaine. Based on this tip, Detective Wenk applied for a court order to obtain cell-site location information (CSLI) for the defendant’s phone, along with other investigative tools. The trial court found probable cause and granted the order, allowing law enforcement to monitor the defendant’s CSLI. This data showed the defendant’s phone traveling from Wilmington, North Carolina, to Hayward, California, and back, coinciding with suspected drug trafficking activity. Officers later stopped and searched the defendant’s vehicle, discovering trafficking amounts of cocaine. The defendant was indicted on multiple drug-related charges and moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the CSLI and subsequent searches.The Superior Court of New Hanover County denied the motion to suppress, finding reasonable suspicion supported the order and the vehicle stop. The defendant entered an Alford plea but appealed the suppression ruling. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the order for CSLI was not supported by probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence should be suppressed. The appellate court rejected the State’s argument that a statutory good faith exception applied, citing prior precedent that the North Carolina Constitution did not recognize such an exception.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the statutory good faith exception in N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 applies only to evidence obtained in substantial violation of Chapter 15A, not to evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. However, the court further held that neither the United States Constitution nor the North Carolina Constitution required exclusion of the CSLI in this case, and formally adopted a good faith exception under the state constitution equivalent to the federal standard. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, upholding the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion. View "State v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Police officers in Charlotte, North Carolina, received a tip from a confidential informant that a man matching the defendant’s description was riding a bicycle and carrying an illegal firearm. Officers located the defendant, who took a shortcut on a dirt path marked “No Trespassing.” After stopping him, officers asked for his identification, which he provided, and requested that he step off his bicycle and remove his backpack. The officers conducted a pat-down with the defendant’s permission. When asked for consent to search his backpack, the defendant initially agreed, then declined several times, expressing fear. Eventually, after further questioning, the defendant agreed to open his backpack, revealing a handgun. The defendant was arrested, and additional contraband was found.The Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the officers had returned his identification and that he freely consented to the search. The court also found that the officers had reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the stop. The defendant entered an Alford plea to the charges and was sentenced to prison. The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the conviction, holding that the trial court’s finding that the officers returned the identification was not supported by competent evidence, and that the defendant’s consent to the search was not voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. It held that competent evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the officers returned the defendant’s identification. The court further held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his backpack. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law