Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder and other offenses and sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole, holding that the trial court violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him by limiting Defendant's cross-examination of the State's principal witness, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.At Defendant's murder trial, Lakenda Malachi was the only witness to provide direct evidence of Defendant's presence at the scene. Defendant sought to impeach Malachi's testimony, but the trial court sustained objections to defense counsel's questions. After Defendant was convicted he appealed. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court committed constitutional error by restricting Defendant's cross-examination of Malachi and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly found that the trial court committed prejudicial error. View "State v. Bowman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that a law enforcement officer's warrantless search of Defendant's USB drive was not permissible under the "private-search doctrine," holding that the State failed to carry its burden of presenting competent evidence establishing that the officer's warrantless search was permissible under the private-search doctrine.The officer conducted a warrantless search of Defendant's USB drive following a prior search of the USB drive by a private individual. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the warrantless search was not authorized under the private-search doctrine but that remand was appropriate to determine whether probable cause existed to issue the search warrant without the evidence obtained from the unlawful search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the private-search doctrine cannot apply to a thumb drive because, even though some of the thumb drive has been previously opened, an officer cannot proceed with "virtual certainty" that nothing else of significance is in the device. View "State v. Terrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of a divided panel of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's convictions of felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny, holding that the evidence presented at trial concerning Defendant's possession of allegedly stolen property was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction under the doctrine of recent possession.Defendant's conviction was based on items not found in Defendant's possession from an earlier breaking and entering. At issue in this case was whether there was substantial evidence under the doctrine of recent possession that Defendant had the "power and intent to control the [stolen] goods" to the exclusion of others. The Supreme Court held that the evidence presented at trial constituted substantial evidence of the second prong under the doctrine of recent possession - exclusive possession - and therefore, the court of appeals majority erred in vacating Defendant's convictions. View "State v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss a charge of possession of heroin for insufficiency of the evidence, holding that the record contained ample evidence tending to show that the substance that Defendant allegedly possessed was heroin.On appeal, Defendant argued that the state's evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the seized evidence was heroin. The court of appeals agreed, holding that because the State failed to present evidence of a scientifically valid chemical analysis identifying the seized substance as heroin, the State had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the seized substance was heroin. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where Defendant told an identifying officer that she had ingested heroin, several investigating officers identified the substance seized as heroin, and the substance Defendant was charged with possessing field-tested positive for heroin on two different occasions, the evidence was sufficient to support the charge. View "State v. Osborne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgments of the trial courts allowing Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the trial courts' findings of fact failed to support their legal conclusion that the investigating officer lacked the probable cause needed to place Defendant under arrest for impaired driving.Defendant was charged with driving while subject to an impairing substance. In granting the motion to suppress, the trial courts concluded that the investigating officer lacked probable cause to place Defendant under arrest for driving while impaired. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the facts supported a conclusion that the officer had probable cause to stop and cite Defendant for driving while impaired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the undisputed facts supported the officer's decision to place Defendant under arrest for impaired driving. View "State v. Parisi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was violated when the State voluntarily dismissed Defendant's charge after his first trial ended in a hung jury mistrial and when Defendant was retried six years later when new evidence emerged, holding that Defendant's second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause and that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment on double jeopardy grounds.Specifically, the Court held (1) jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and continues following a mistrial until a terminating event occurs; (2) when the State enters a voluntary dismissal after jeopardy has attached, jeopardy is terminated in the defendant's favor, and the State cannot retry the case without violating a defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy; and (3) because Defendant's jeopardy remained attached following the mistrial declaration in his first trial and was terminated when the State subsequently entered a dismissal of the charge under N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-931, Defendant's second prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "State v. Courtney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the opinion of the court of appeals granting Defendant a new trial on his abduction of a child and statutory rape charges on the grounds that Defendant was prejudiced by the trial court's decision to allow his affidavit of indigence to be admitted to prove his age, holding that the admission of the affidavit was erroneous, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.After Defendant was indicted Defendant completed and signed an affidavit of indigence so that a court-appointed attorney could be assigned to his case. During trial, the trial court allowed into evidence a copy of the affidavit to prove Defendant's age, which was an element of the charges. The court of appeals granted Defendant a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred in admitting the affidavit in violation of Defendant's right against self-incrimination to prove an element of charges against him. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court committed constitutional error by allowing Defendant's affidavit of indigence to be admitted into evidence; and (2) there was no reasonable possibility that the admission of Defendant's affidavit of indigence might have contributed to the conviction. View "State v. Diaz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the court of appeals upholding Defendant's conviction of second-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err in declining Defendant's request to instruct the jury on either the affirmative defense of perfect self-defense or imperfect self-defense and that Defendant received a fair trial.On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because the evidence presented at trial did not warrant such an instruction. Thus, the court of appeals found no error in Defendant's trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no evidence entitling Defendant to have the jury to be instructed on self-defense. View "State v. Harvey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals dismissing the State's appeal from the trial court's order granting J.C.'s expunction with respect to his conviction for the offense of indecent liberties with a child, holding that the State has no right of appeal in orders granting expunctions under N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-145.5.J.C. was granted an expunction of arrest, trial, and conviction record from a prior conviction and from previously dismissed charges. The trial court granted the expunction under section 15A-145.5. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the legislature did not give the State the right to appeal an expunction under section 15A-145.5 and did not amend section 15A-1445 to include this right. View "State v. J.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction for manufacturing marijuana, holding that the indictment returned for the purpose of charging Defendant with manufacturing marijuana was not fatally defective.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the manufacturing marijuana charge for insufficiency of the evidence. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's conviction, concluding that the indictment was fatally defective because it failed to allege that Defendant acted with an "intent to distribute." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the indictment at issue sufficed to give the trial court jurisdiction to enter judgment against Defendant based upon his conviction for manufacturing marijuana given that it also alleged that Defendant manufactured marijuana by "producing," "propagating," and "processing" it. View "State v. Lofton" on Justia Law