Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine by possession, trafficking in cocaine by transportation, and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court committed plain error by failing to adequately instruct the jury that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that he had possessed and transported cocaine. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions and awarded him a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury in accordance with footnote four to N.C.P.I. Crim. 260.17 and 260.30 because the trial court’s instructions here adequately addressed the issue that the jury had to decide to determine Defendant’s guilt or innocence. View "State v. Galaviz-Torres" on Justia Law

A police officer stopped and searched Defendant outside a shop known for drug activity. Defendant was subsequently indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and conspiracy to posses with intent to sell or deliver marijuana. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the initial stop, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the unchallenged findings of fact made by the trial court sufficiently established that the officer possessed reasonable suspicion to conduct a brief investigatory stop of Defendant. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The district court entered an ex parte Domestic Violence Order of Protection (DVPO) against Defendant under N.C. Gen. Stat. 50B-3. The court ordered Defendant in the DVPO to surrender his firearms and ammunition and further ordered that law enforcement officers shall search “Defendant’s person, vehicle and residence and seize any and all weapons found.” When officers served the DVPO on Defendant at his residence, they entered the house to execute the search for weapons. Once inside the home, officers found a marijuana growing operation. Defendant was subsequently charged with drug-related offenses. The superior court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence.The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) the relevant DVPO statutes do not authorize the district court to order a general search of Defendant’s person, vehicle, and residence for weapons; and (2) the ex parte DVPO was not a de facto search warrant. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed, holding (1) section 50B-3(a)(13) does not authorize the district court to order a search of a defendant’s residence under a civil DVPO; and (2) because the search of Defendant’s home was conducted without a warrant or any articulable exception to the warrant requirement, it violated Defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights. View "State v. Elder" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for one count of first-degree statutory rape, first-degree statutory rape, and first-degree sex offense with a child. During jury deliberations, the jurors sent two consecutive notes to the court indicating that they were deadlocked. The judge instructed the jurors to continue with their deliberations. The jury eventually found Defendant guilty of one count of first-degree statutory rape but failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the remaining two counts. The trial court declared a mistrial as to the two counts on which the jury deadlocked. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial court’s instructions to the jury violated N.C. Gen. Stat. 5A-1235(c), which sets out procedures a trial court may follow when a jury is deadlocked, and that the error resulted in an unconstitutional coercion of a deadlocked jury.The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because Defendant failed to object to the instructions, any error was not preserved and was subject to plain error review; and (2) applying this standard, the trial court’s instructions did not result in an unconstitutional coercion of a deadlocked jury. View "State v. May" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for the first-degree murders of three women, including Heather Catterton and Randi Saldana. Defendant was first tried capitally for the Catteron murder, which was the matter at issue in this appeal. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder. The jury recommended, and the trial court entered, a sentence of death. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court erred by (1) allowing admission of an excessive amount of the Saldana murder evidence under N.C. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) allowing Saldana’s sister to testify about Saldana’s good character; and (3) allowing the prosecution to argue without basis to the jury that defense counsel had in effect suborned perjury. Further, the cumulative effect of these three errors deprived Defendant of a fair trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Hembree" on Justia Law

In 1973, Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary for which he was sentenced to imprisonment “for his natural life.” In 2011, Defendant filed a pro se motion for appropriate relief (MAR) asking the trial court to set aside his sentence on the burglary charge as cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court granted Defendant’s MAR, vacated the judgment in the second-degree burglary case, and resentenced Defendant to a term of thirty years. After giving credit for time served, the trial court ordered that Defendant be immediately released. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the original 1973 judgment and commitment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court of appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the State’s appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals has subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the State of an MAR when the defendant has won relief from the trial court. View "State v. Stubbs" on Justia Law

When two detectives were parked in Defendant’s driveway, they saw three potted marijuana plants within the home’s curtilage. The detectives seized the plants before returning the next day with a warrant to search Defendant’s home. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the seized plants, claiming that discovery of the plants was the product of an illegal search and seizure. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the seizure of the plants violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the detectives’ seizure was justified under the plain view doctrine and supported by exigent circumstances. View "State v. Grice" on Justia Law

Defendant was one of a group of prisoners called Bowden-class inmates who committed offenses between 1974 and 1978 and received death sentences that were later reduced to life imprisonment. Defendant accrued various credits during his incarceration, and the Department of Correction (DOC) applied some of Defendant’s credits towards earlier parole eligibility but not towards the calculation of an unconditional release date. In 2005, Defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming he was entitled to immediate release from prison because, after applying his various credits, he had completed his life sentence. The trial court ultimately concluded that all of Defendant’s credits should be applied to his sentence for all purposes, including calculating an unconditional release date, and the DOC erred in refusing to apply Defendant’s credits in this way. The trial court then determined that Defendant had served his entire sentence and ordered the DOC to release Defendant unconditionally. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the DOC was not required to apply the credits towards the calculation for an unconditional release date for a Bowden-class inmate, and therefore, Defendant remained lawfully incarcerated and was not entitled to release. View "State v. Bowden" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder under theories of both premeditation and deliberation and under the felony murder rule. The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred by declining to give an accessory before the instruction under N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-5.2 and that the error was prejudicial. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that Defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder under a theory of felony murder was supported by ample evidence, and therefore, no new trial was warranted, and the conviction must stand. View "State v. Grainger" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of statutory rape of a fifteen-year-old child, second-degree rape of a mentally disabled person, and taking indecent liberties with a child. The convictions arose from Defendant’s single act of vaginal intercourse with a juvenile who is mildly to moderately mentally disabled. Defendant’s convictions were upheld on appeal. Defendant then filed a motion for appropriate relief (MAR), claiming that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object on double jeopardy grounds to his being sentenced of both statutory rape and second-degree rape for the same act. The trial court denied the MAR. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the General Assembly did not intend for defendants to be punished separately for both statutory rape and second-degree rape when the convictions are predicated upon a single act of sexual intercourse. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that it is the General Assembly’s intent for defendants to be separately punished for a violation of the second-degree rape and statutory rape statutes arising from a single act of sexual intercourse, and therefore, Defendant was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to raise the double jeopardy argument. View "State v. Banks" on Justia Law