Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the majority decision of the court of appeals finding no error in Defendant's trial and conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver methamphetamine.On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to support a charge of possession of methamphetamine but was insufficient to send to the jury the greater charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver methamphetamine. The court of appeals majority disagreed and affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence of Defendant's intent to sell or deliver methamphetamine. View "State v. Blagg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder by starvation and negligent child abuse inflicting serious bodily injury and Defendant's sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, holding that there was no prejudicial error.Before the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the first-degree murder charge on the grounds that the record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support a finding that the child victim's death was proximately caused by starvation. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the trial court had ample justification for concluding that the victim died as a proximate result of starvation. View "State v. Cheeks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals ordering a new trial in this case on the grounds that the prosecutor's commentary on Defendant's decision to plead not guilty was so unfair it violated Defendant's due process rights, holding that the prosecutor's comments did not so prejudice Defendant so as to warrant a new trial.Defendant was found guilty of several offenses after a jury trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to intervene ex mero motu when the prosecutor made improper remarks about Defendant's decision to plead not guilty during closing arguments. The court of appeals agreed and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced as a result of the prosecutor's improper closing arguments. View "State v. Goins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for felony breaking or entering a motor vehicle, misdemeanor larceny, and misdemeanor possession of stolen property, holding that the trial court did not err when it declined to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication.The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction on direct appeal, concluding that Defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence of voluntary intoxication, and therefore, the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was not substantial evidence to require a voluntary intoxication instruction. View "State v. Meader" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence generated from his blood but that the error was not prejudicial.In denying Defendant's suppression motion the court of appeals held that the trial court erred by not excluding Defendant's blood test results but that Defendant failed to carry his burden to show that the denial of his motion to suppress resulted in prejudicial error. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals applied the incorrect standard for determining prejudice resulting from the violation of Defendant's rights under the United States Constitution. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals finding no error in the judgments of conviction in this case, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Defendants' claims had not been properly preserved for appeal.Three defendants were tried together as co-defendants for the involvement in a crime where armed robbers stole nearly half a million dollars from Raleigh's Walnut Creek Amphitheater. Following their convictions two defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying their motions for separate trials. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that because the grounds for severance argued that the beginning of trial were different from the grounds relied upon by Defendants on appeal, Defendants' claims had not been properly preserved for appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in analyzing the case as one involving severance of offenses rather than severance of defendants. View "State v. Melvin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals remanding judgments entered by the superior court for a hearing to determine Defendant's competency at the time of trial, holding that the trial court did not err by failing to hold a second competency hearing immediately prior to the beginning of Defendant's trial on its own motion.Defendant was charged with selling and delivering buprenorphine, maintaining a vehicle for the purpose of selling buprenorphine, possession of buprenorphine with the intent to sell or deliver, and having attained habitual felon status. Defendant was convicted. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court had erred by failing to hold a second competency hearing before the beginning of his trial. The court of appeals agreed and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his challenge to the trial court's failure to inquire into his competence to stand trial on its own motion. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court ordering Defendant to register as a sex offender under N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-202(l), holding that the evidentiary facts supported the trial court's ultimate fact that Defendant was a danger to the community.Defendant pled guilty to secret peeping pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-202(d). The trial court placed Defendant on supervised probation and ordered him to register as a sex offender. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order requiring Defendant to rester as a sex offender, concluding that the trial court's finding that Defendant was a "danger to the community" was supported by competent evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in affirming the trial court's order requiring Defendant to register as a sex offender based on the finding that he was a danger to the community. View "State v. Fuller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendants' convictions of second-degree murder and ordering a new trial, holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding evidence that was highly relevant as to Defendants' self-defense claims.Defendants, Thomas Martens and his daughter, Molly Corbett, were found guilty of murdering Molly's husband, Jason Corbett. During trial, Defendants maintained that they had lawfully used deadly force to defend themselves while under a reasonable apprehension that they were facing an imminent threat of deadly harm during an interaction initiated by Jason. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial, holding that the trial court erroneously excluded certain evidence, thus depriving Defendants of their ability to present a full and meaningful defense. View "State v. Corbett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for felonious obstruction of justice, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence that Defendant acted with deceit and intent to defraud to support her conviction.Defendant's daughter had been sexually abused by Defendant's husband. Defendant's conviction arose from her actions in interfering with the ability of social workers and law enforcement officers to have access to her daughter. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. The court of appeals upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record evidence provided sufficient support for a jury to find that Defendant precluded investigating officials from accessing her daughter with deceit and the intent to defraud. View "State v. Ditenhafer" on Justia Law