Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

James Bowman was indicted for seven criminal offenses, including two counts of first-degree forcible sexual offense, after an incident involving S.B. on September 8, 2019. S.B. testified that Bowman, armed with a firearm, forced her to engage in various sexual acts, including anal intercourse and fellatio, against her will. Bowman was found guilty on all charges by a jury in his second trial.The Superior Court of Durham County sentenced Bowman to 365 to 498 months of active imprisonment. Bowman appealed, arguing that the trial court's jury instructions violated his right to a unanimous verdict. The Court of Appeals, in a split decision, agreed with Bowman, finding that the trial court's instructions were erroneous and jeopardized his right to a unanimous verdict. The court ordered a new trial for the two counts of first-degree forcible sexual offense.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 jury instructions, when read as a whole, required a unanimous verdict and did not violate Bowman's right to a unanimous jury verdict. The court emphasized that the instructions clearly defined the elements of the offense and the need for unanimity. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address Bowman's remaining arguments. View "State v. Bowman" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury after a shooting at a Raleigh motel. The defendant represented himself at trial and chose to be absent from the courtroom after his closing argument was cut off by the trial court. During jury deliberations, Juror #5 was excused for a medical appointment, and an alternate juror was substituted. The trial court instructed the jury to restart deliberations from the beginning. The jury found the defendant guilty of both charges, and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder conviction and additional imprisonment for the assault conviction.The defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the North Carolina Court of Appeals, arguing that the substitution of an alternate juror during deliberations violated his state constitutional right to a twelve-person jury. The Court of Appeals unanimously agreed, holding that the substitution resulted in a jury of thirteen people, which violated the state constitution. The court vacated the defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial.The State sought discretionary review by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which reviewed the constitutionality of the statute allowing mid-deliberation juror substitution. The Supreme Court held that the statute did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to a jury of twelve, as it required the jury to begin deliberations anew following the substitution. The court presumed that the jury followed the trial court's instructions to restart deliberations, ensuring that the verdict was rendered by a properly constituted jury of twelve. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "State v. Chambers" on Justia Law

Defendant Bryan Christopher Bell was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, and burning of personal property. He was sentenced to death for the murder conviction, and received consecutive prison terms for the other charges. Bell filed a post-conviction motion for appropriate relief, claiming that the prosecution engaged in gender-based discrimination during jury selection, violating J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.The Superior Court of Onslow County denied Bell's motion, finding that his J.E.B. claim was not preserved for appellate review and was procedurally barred under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419. Bell then petitioned the Supreme Court of North Carolina for a writ of certiorari, which was granted to review the procedural aspects of his claim.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that Bell failed to preserve his J.E.B. claim because he did not raise a gender-based objection during jury selection or on direct appeal. The court also found that the claim was procedurally barred, as Bell could have raised it on direct appeal but did not. The court concluded that the Butler affidavit, which Bell relied on to support his claim, did not provide new evidence that could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence at the time of his initial appeal.The court affirmed the Superior Court's order denying Bell's motion for appropriate relief, emphasizing the importance of preserving claims for appellate review and adhering to procedural requirements. The court did not find sufficient grounds to overcome the procedural bar, as Bell did not demonstrate good cause or actual prejudice. View "State v. Bell" on Justia Law

The defendant, a seventeen-year-old, was convicted of the abduction and murder of eighty-nine-year-old Elleze Kennedy. Along with his co-defendants, the defendant followed Ms. Kennedy home, assaulted her, and placed her in the trunk of her car. They later set the car on fire, resulting in Ms. Kennedy's death from carbon monoxide poisoning. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison without parole.The Superior Court of Onslow County initially sentenced the defendant to life without parole. The Court of Appeals upheld this sentence, finding no error. The defendant then filed a motion for appropriate relief, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, which requires consideration of a juvenile's age and potential for rehabilitation before imposing a life without parole sentence. The Superior Court held a resentencing hearing and reaffirmed the life without parole sentence, considering the Miller factors.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. The court held that the defendant's J.E.B. claim, alleging gender bias in jury selection, was procedurally barred because it was not raised at trial or on direct appeal. The court also affirmed the lower court's decision to sentence the defendant to life without parole, finding that the sentencing court properly considered the Miller factors, including the defendant's age, immaturity, ability to appreciate risks, prior record, mental health, and potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in weighing these factors and that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "State v. Sims" on Justia Law

In 2021, Kaylore Fenner kidnapped, assaulted, and raped his mother. He was charged with multiple serious offenses, including forcible rape, kidnapping, robbery, and breaking or entering to terrorize and injure. Before trial, Fenner requested to represent himself. The trial court informed him that he faced 75 to 175 years in prison, a miscalculation. After being found guilty, Fenner was sentenced to 121 to 178 years in prison. Fenner appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by miscalculating the range of possible punishments.The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Fenner was aware he was facing a life sentence. The court reasoned that the miscalculation did not affect the outcome because both the miscalculated and actual sentences were tantamount to life imprisonment.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. The court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the trial court complied with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242, as the miscalculated range and the actual range were both equivalent to the remainder of Fenner's life. The court emphasized that the upper limit of any criminal defendant's period of incarceration is their natural life. Therefore, the trial court's miscalculation did not violate the statute, as it accurately conveyed that Fenner could spend the rest of his life in prison.The Supreme Court of North Carolina modified and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court's colloquy with Fenner complied with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242, despite the numerical inaccuracy in the range of possible punishments. The court also addressed and dismissed additional arguments raised by Fenner. View "State v. Fenner" on Justia Law

The defendant, a high school senior, killed his parents one month before his eighteenth birthday. After being convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, he was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. The defendant argued that his sentencing violated the Eighth Amendment, North Carolina’s Miller-fix statute, and the North Carolina Constitution because his crimes did not reflect permanent incorrigibility.The Superior Court of Watauga County conducted a sentencing hearing and considered various mitigating factors, including the defendant's age, immaturity, intellectual capacity, mental health, and familial pressures. The court found that the defendant's actions demonstrated an understanding of the consequences and a deliberate attempt to cover up the crimes. The court concluded that the defendant's crimes reflected irreparable corruption and permanent incorrigibility, justifying the life sentences without parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentencing court's decision, finding no error.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the sentencing court properly considered the mitigating factors and exercised its discretion in sentencing the defendant. The court emphasized that the Eighth Amendment does not require a finding of permanent incorrigibility but mandates that the sentencing court consider the defendant's youth and attendant characteristics. The court concluded that the sentencing court's decision was not an abuse of discretion and upheld the life sentences without parole. View "State v. Borlase" on Justia Law

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