Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioners in this action were inmates who had been sentenced to death by lethal injection. Respondent, North Carolina Council of State, approved the lethal injection protocol after it was submitted to the Council by the Department of Corrections (DOC), an administrative agency. Although Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the state's method of execution, at issue on appeal was whether the Council's statutorily-mandated approval of the DOC's action was subject to the requirements of the North Carolina APA when the DOC's action was exempt from the APA. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) ALJ recommended that the Council reconsider its approval of the execution protocol. The Council declined to reconsider its approval based upon its conclusion that the OAH did not have jurisdiction to review the issue. The superior court dismissed Petitioners' petition for judicial review. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the superior court's ruling that the APA does not apply to the Council's approval of the execution protocol, and (2) affirmed the court's ruling, as modified, that Petitioners' rights do not include the right to present evidence to the Council and that the Council's obligations do not include a substantive review of the protocol before it is approved.View "Conner v. N.C. Council of State" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant Nakia Nickerson guilty of felonious possession of stolen goods. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, contending that it was a lesser-included offense of the crime of possession of stolen goods. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is a lesser-included offense of possession of stolen goods, and (2) the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle requires proof of at least one essential element not required to prove possession of stolen goods, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle cannot be a lesser-included offense of possession of stolen goods; and (2) as such, Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. View "State v. Nickerson" on Justia Law

Defendant Roger Moore was convicted of obtaining property by false pretense and was sentenced to six to eight months in prison, suspended subject to supervised probation. As a condition of his probation, Defendant was ordered to pay restitution. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction but vacated the restitution award as unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals decision vacating the award, holding that, while there was some evidence to support an award of restitution, the evidence presented did not adequately support the particular amount awarded here. Remanded to the trial court for a new hearing to determine the appropriate amount of restitution.View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

Defendant Eugene Hill was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon for taking $100 from the victim by means of threatening the use of a sharp object. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the State presented substantial evidence that (1) the victim's money was taken via the use or threatened use of a dnagerous weapon, and (2) the victim's life was endangered or threatened by Defendant's use of a dangerous weapon during the course of the robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction.View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

The North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission recommended that Respondent John Totten, a district court judge, be censured for conduct in violation of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-376(b). Respondent had suppressed the breath alcohol concentration test taken by a defendant charged with driving while impaired and careless and reckless driving without a motion to suppress and a hearing as required by law. The Supreme Court ordered that Respondent be censured for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and section 7A-376(b). View "In re Totten" on Justia Law

On July 29, 1994, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. The date of the offense was August 25, 1993. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). The General Assembly enacted the Structured Sentencing Act (SSA) to supercede the FSA for offenses committed on or after the SSA's effective date, October 1, 1994. In contrast to the FSA, the SSA imposed shorter terms of imprisonment for second-degree murder. On March 28, 2011, Defendant filed an amended motion for appropriate relief requesting modification of his sentence under the SSA. The superior court ordered that Defendant's life sentence be modified to a term of 157 to 198 months under the SSA. The Supreme Court vacated the order and judgment of the trial court, holding (1) Defendant's offense was controlled exclusively by the FSA; and (2) the superior court violated a clear and unambiguous statute by modifying Defendant's sentence in accordance with the SSA. Remanded. View "State v. Whitehead" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual offense and crime against nature based on the victim's age and inability to consent due to a mental disability. The court of appeals reversed and vacated Defendant's convictions, holding that expert testimony was necessary to establish whether the victim had the requisite mental capacity to consent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the State was not required to use expert testimony pursuant to N.C. R. Evid. 702 to establish the extent of the victim's mental capacity to consent to sexual acts under the circumstances of this case; and (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to withstand Defendant's motions to dismiss. View "State v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Richard Lee was pulled over for speeding and taken to an intake center to undergo chemical analysis of his blood alcohol level. Lee did not agree to take the test despite a police officer's admonitions that Lee's driving privileges would be revoked if he refused. The officer then executed an affidavit regarding Lee's refusal to submit to chemical analysis. The DMV later suspended Lee's driving privileges for one year. A hearing officer concluded that the revocation of Lee's driving privileges was proper, and the superior court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the DMV lacked the authority to revoke Lee's driving privileges because the DMV never received the statutorily-required affidavit indicating that Lee had willfully refused to submit to chemical analysis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-16.2(d) requires that the DMV first receive a properly executed affidavit from law enforcement swearing to a willful refusal to submit to chemical analysis before revoking driving privileges, the DMV lacked the authority to revoke the driving privileges of Lee.View "Lee v. Gore" on Justia Law

Defendant Khuram Choudhry was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry pertaining to defense counsel's possible conflict of interest arising from counsel's prior representation of a State's witness. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, holding (1) although the trial court heard argument from the prosecutor and from defense counsel on this issue and made direct inquiry of Defendant after placing him under oath, under the facts of this case, the inquiry was insufficient to assure that Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made his decision regarding counsel's continued representation; but (2) Defendant failed to make a threshold showing that defense counsel's performance was adversely affected by the conflict, much less that Defendant was prejudiced by the representation.View "State v. Choudhry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for trafficking in cocaine by possession, trafficking in cocaine by transportation, possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, and carrying a concealed gun. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle during a search that was conducted only after officers had arrested him for carrying a concealed gun and placed him in a police car. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that it was not reasonable for the arresting officers to believe Defendant's vehicle contained evidence of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals with instructions to reinstate the trial court's decision, holding that the search of Defendant's vehicle was constitutionally permissible under Arizona v. Gant, and the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion for relief. View "State v. Mbacke" on Justia Law