Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After a jury trial, Eric Jones was found guilty of two counts of obtaining property by false pretenses and one count of identity theft, and Jerry White was found guilty of four counts of trafficking in stolen identities. The charges arose from unauthorized charges made on the credit cards of several persons. The trial court subsequently dismissed the charges against Jones for obtaining property by false pretenses and all trafficking in stolen identities charges against White on the basis that the indictments were insufficient as a matter of law. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Jones possessed the specific intent to commit identity theft; and (2) the indictments against the defendants were insufficient to support the convictions against Jones for obtaining property by false pretenses and against White for trafficking in stolen identities. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of trafficking in opium by possession. During the trial, a laboratory report of the results of a chemical analysis of the contraband were admitted, over Defendant’s objection, without calling the testing chemist as a witness. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the State failed to establish that Defendant waived his confrontation rights because the record did not demonstrate that the State had provided a pretrial copy of the lab report to Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Defendant failed properly to raise or preserve the issue regarding the State’s compliance with the statutory requirement that the State provide a copy of the lab report to a defendant before trial. Remanded. View "State v. Whittington" on Justia Law