Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Criminal Law
State v. Miller
Defendant was indicted on charges of possession with the intent to sell or deliver marijuana, maintaining a dwelling house for keeping, storing, using or selling marijuana, and carrying a handgun concealed in his vehicle. The charges arose after a police dog did a protective sweep of Defendant’s home and alerted to the presence of narcotics. At issue in this appeal was conflicting testimonies as to whether marijuana was in plain view before the dog nuzzled into and opened bags containing the marijuana. The trial court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the dog was an instrumentality of the police, and his actions, whether instinctive or not, are no different than those undertaken by an officer; and (2) if the dog opened the bags and exposed the otherwise hidden marijuana, it would not be admissible under the plain view doctrine. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a police dog’s instinctive action, unguided and undirected by the police, that brings evidence not otherwise in plain view into plain view is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Remanded. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law
State v. Walston
After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of first-degree sexual offense, three counts of first-degree rape, and five counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, concluding (1) the trial court erred in prohibiting witness testimony about Defendant’s character of being respectful towards children; and (2) the trial court erred in not substituting the term “alleged victim” for the word “victim” in the pattern jury instructions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in prohibiting evidence of Defendant’s respectful attitude towards children, as the proffered evidence was not sufficiently tailored to the State’s charges of child sexual abuse and was thus inadmissible; and (2) the trial court’s use of the term “victim” in the jury instructions was not impermissible commentary on a disputed issue of fact, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s request to use the phrase “alleged victim” instead of the word “victim” in its charge to the jury. View "State v. Walston" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
State v. Childress
Defendant drove by Patrice Harney’s home, where Harney was sitting on her front porch, shouted a phrase used by gang members, and ultimately fired repeated bullets into Harney’s home when she retreated from his attack. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of attempted first-degree murder and five counts of discharging a firearm into occupied property. The Court of Appeals reversed the attempted murder conviction, concluding that the State had failed to produce sufficient evidence of Defendant’s premeditation and deliberation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence supported an inference that Defendant deliberately and with premeditation set out to kill Harney by shooting repeatedly at Harney on her porch and through her home. View "State v. Childress" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
State v. Benters
Based upon an affidavit by a state law enforcement officer, a magistrate issued a warrant authorizing a search of Defendant’s home and outbuildings on his property. Law enforcement officers executed the warrant and seized fifty-five marijuana plans, indoor growing supplies, firearms and ammunition, and $1540 in cash. Defendant was indicted for maintaining a dwelling to keep a controlled substance, manufacture of a controlled substance, and trafficking in marijuana by possession, among other offenses. The trial court suppressed the items seized under the search warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the affidavit was not supported by probable cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit failed to provide a substantial basis for the magistrate to conclude that probable cause existed. View "State v. Benters" on Justia Law
State v. Sanders
After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon. On remand, the trial court awarded sentencing points for Defendant’s two prior Tennessee misdemeanor convictions, determining the Tennessee offenses of theft of property and domestic assault to be substantially similar to the North Carolina offenses of larceny and assault on a female. The court of appeals (1) affirmed the trial court’s determination that the Tennessee offense of theft of property is substantially similar to the North Carolina offense of larceny; and (2) reversed the trial court’s determination that the Tennessee offense of domestic assault was substantially similar to the North Carolina offense of assault on a female. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court erred in determining that the Tennessee offense of domestic assault and the North Carolina offense of assault on a female to be substantially similar without reviewing the Tennessee statute defining the offense of assault and erred in determining that the two offenses were substantially similar. Remanded. View "State v. Sanders" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
State v. Facyson
Defendant was charged with first-degree murder. The State submitted as an aggravating factor that Defendant joined with more than one other person in committing the offense and was not charged with committing a conspiracy. The trial court also instructed the jury that it could find Defendant guilty of murder if it determined that he acted in concert to commit the murder. The jury found Defendant guilty of second-degree murder. The trial court concluded that an aggravated sentence was justified in this case. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence of his concerted action was the same evidence used to support the aggravating factor, and thus, the use of this aggravating factor to enhance his sentence violated the statutory prohibition against using evidence necessary to prove an element of the offense to also prove an aggravating factor. The Court of Appeals agreed with Defendant and remanded for resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence supporting Defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder under an acting-in-concert theory was not the same evidence the State used to support the aggravating factor.
View "State v. Facyson" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
State v. Murchison
While on probation, Defendant was indicted for several crimes. After a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing, which consisted of hearsay evidence, was not competent so as to satisfy a judge that Defendant had willfully violated a valid condition of probation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court was justified in activating Defendant’s suspended sentence where the evidence allowed the reasonable conclusion that Defendant had continued a course of criminal action and posed a danger to the public. View "State v. Murchison" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
State v. Pennell
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of felony breaking or entering, two counts of felony larceny, and one count of possession of cocaine. Defendant’s sentences for the offenses were suspended and he was placed on probation. After Defendant violated his probation the trial court revoked his probation and activated his sentences for the remaining offenses for which he was on probation. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to revoke his probation on one count of larceny because the original indictment for the offense was fatally defective. The Court of Appeals held that Defendant’s appeal was proper. The Supreme Court reversed this determination, holding that a defendant may not collaterally challenge the validity of an underlying indictment by means of an appeal from revocation of his probation. View "State v. Pennell" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
State v. Verkerk
Defendant’s vehicle was stopped by a firefighter for driving erratically. Defendant unexpectedly drove away from the scene but was soon encountered by police officers, who cited her for driving while impaired and driving while license revoked. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to driving while impaired. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress, claiming that firefighters do not have legal authority to conduct traffic stops. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order, finding that the firefighter’s actions constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Defendant never challenged the actions of the arresting officers, she presented no legal basis for suppressing the evidence supporting her conviction. View "State v. Verkerk" on Justia Law
State v. Stokes
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree kidnapping, possession of a firearm by a felon, assault of a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and related offenses. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence of removal, an essential element of second-degree kidnapping. The court of appeals agreed and reversed Defendant’s second-degree kidnapping conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) when an appellate court concludes that a defendant’s conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, the court must determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support a lesser included offense of the convicted crime, and if the court so determines, the jury’s verdict is recognized as a verdict of guilty to the lesser included offense; (2) the court of appeals in this case erred by refusing to consider whether Defendant’s actions constituted the lesser included offense of attempted second-degree kidnapping; and (3) the State presented sufficient evidence that Defendant’s actions satisfied each element of attempted second-degree kidnapping. Remanded for entry of judgment on the lesser offense. View "State v. Stokes" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law