Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that, within the particular facts and overall context of this criminal case, the trial court did not violate either the United States Constitution or the North Carolina General Statutes by declining to conduct further inquiry into Defendant's capacity to proceed following his apparent suicide attempt on the morning of the sixth day of trial.Defendant's suicide attempt occurred before the jury was given its instructions but after the jury had heard closing arguments from both sides. To determine whether Defendant had forfeited his right to be present for the trial's ongoing proceedings the trial court received evidence concerning his medical history and state of mind at the time of his apparent suicide attempt. The court ultimately concluded that Defendant's injuries were entirely caused by his own voluntary actions, and therefore, Defendant had voluntarily absented himself from the trial proceedings. The trial was continued in his absence, and the trial court entered judgments against Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not erroneously decline to make further inquiry into Defendant's capacity to proceed during the trial proceedings. View "State v. Flow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the final order and judgment of the trial court in this case involving challenges to N.C. Gen. Stat. 13-1, the statute setting forth the criteria that felons must satisfy to be eligible for re-enfranchisement, holding that the trial court erred in entering an order allowing all felons not in jail or prison to register and vote.Nearly fifty years after the legislature rewrote section 13-1 to make re-enfranchisement automatic for all eligible felons Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the requirement that felons complete their probation, parole, or post-release supervision before they regain their voting rights. Plaintiffs alleged that this requirement was intended to discriminate African Americans. The trial court ruled for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that legislators intended their reforms to section 13-1 to disadvantage African Americans; and (2) Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their other constitutional claims. View "Community Success Initiative v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals vacating the judgment of the superior court sentencing Defendant at the Class B1 felony level in connection with his conviction of second-degree murder, holding that the trial court properly sentenced Defendant at the Class B1 level.In 2019, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. At issue was whether Defendant should have been sentenced at the lower Class B2 felony level given the jury's conclusion that Defendant acted, in part, with depraved-heart malice. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's sentence, holding that, under the circumstances, the jury's completed verdict form was not ambiguous, and Defendant was properly sentenced at the Class B2 level. View "State v. Borum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals vacating the judgment of the superior court sentencing Defendant at the Class B1 felony level in connection with his conviction of second-degree murder, holding that the trial court properly sentenced Defendant at the Class B1 level.In 2019, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. At issue was whether Defendant should have been sentenced at the lower Class B2 felony level given the jury's conclusion that Defendant acted, in part, with depraved-heart malice. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's sentence, holding that, under the circumstances, the jury's completed verdict form was not ambiguous, and Defendant was properly sentenced at the Class B1 level. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that there was no violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), in the underlying proceedings, holding that the trial court's decision that there was no Batson violation was not clearly erroneous.After Defendant was convicted, the Supreme Court remanded this case to the trial court to conduct further proceedings under Batson. On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing, made extensive findings of fact, and concluded that there was no Batson violation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusions were not clearly erroneous. View "State v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that the trial court complied with the procedure implemented in N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1201(d)(1) by the legislature for the trial court to consent to Defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial for the status offense of habitual felon, holding that the court of appeals did not err.After a colloquy on the record, in which Defendant gave notice in open court of his waiver of a jury trial, the trial court proceeded with a bench trial and found Defendant guilty of multiple drug-related offenses. Before the court proceeded with the phase of the trial addressing the habitual felon status offense, Defendant signed and acknowledged under oath another waiver of jury trial form. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in how it personally addressed him and in determining that he fully understood and appreciated the consequences of his decision to waive the right to trial by jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that that the court of appeals did not err by concluding that the trial court complied with the procedure set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1201(d)(1) for the court to consent to Defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial for the habitual felon offense. View "State v. Rollinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction of second-degree murder on the grounds that the trial court committed prejudicial error by declining to deliver Defendant's proffered jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial.Defendant was convicted of the murder of his wife. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in failing to submit his requested jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter because the jury could have found that he assaulted his wife in a culpably negligent manner or that his failure to render aid was a culpably negligent omission. The court of appeals agreed and vacated the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by declining Defendant's request to issue a pattern jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter. View "State v. Brichikov" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals finding no error in Defendant's sentences, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce Defendant's sentence due to Defendant's rendition of substantial assistance.Defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a felon. At sentencing, the trial court declined Defendant's invitation to make a downward adjustment to his sentence in light of the assistance he provided to law enforcement officers in their criminal investigation. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court determining that Defendant's behavior was sufficiently egregious to warrant the forfeiture of her right to counsel, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial.Defendant was charged with attempting to possess a firearm while subject to an ex parte Domestic Violence Protection Order prohibiting the same. After a trial, at which Defendant proceeded pro se, the jury found Defendant guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court of appeals erred in holding that Defendant waived her right to counsel or alternatively forfeited her right to counsel. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding (1) the issue of waiver was inapposite because Defendant expressly requested the appointment of counsel; and (2) the trial court erred in its alternate determination that Defendant's behavior was sufficiently egregious to warrant the forfeiture of the right to counsel. View "State v. Atwell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgments revoking Defendant's probation entered more than one year after Defendant's term of probation had expired, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.The trial court concluded that good cause existed to revoke Defendant's probation despite the expiration of his probationary period. Defendant appealed, arguing that the "good cause" found by the trial court failed as a matter of law to satisfy N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1344(f)(3). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) possessed the jurisdiction to revoke Defendant's probation after his term of probation had expired; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that good cause existed for the revocation of Defendant's probation after his term of probation had expired. View "State v. Geter" on Justia Law