Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court determining that Defendant's behavior was sufficiently egregious to warrant the forfeiture of her right to counsel, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial.Defendant was charged with attempting to possess a firearm while subject to an ex parte Domestic Violence Protection Order prohibiting the same. After a trial, at which Defendant proceeded pro se, the jury found Defendant guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court of appeals erred in holding that Defendant waived her right to counsel or alternatively forfeited her right to counsel. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding (1) the issue of waiver was inapposite because Defendant expressly requested the appointment of counsel; and (2) the trial court erred in its alternate determination that Defendant's behavior was sufficiently egregious to warrant the forfeiture of the right to counsel. View "State v. Atwell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgments revoking Defendant's probation entered more than one year after Defendant's term of probation had expired, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.The trial court concluded that good cause existed to revoke Defendant's probation despite the expiration of his probationary period. Defendant appealed, arguing that the "good cause" found by the trial court failed as a matter of law to satisfy N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1344(f)(3). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) possessed the jurisdiction to revoke Defendant's probation after his term of probation had expired; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that good cause existed for the revocation of Defendant's probation after his term of probation had expired. View "State v. Geter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing one of Defendant's convictions for first-degree kidnapping for lack of sufficient evidence, holding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the second first-degree kidnapping charge.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the second of two first-degree kidnapping charges for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a first-degree rape because the evidence showed that one of the alleged kidnappings had occurred after the commission of the rape had concluded. The court of appeals agreed and reversed the second of Defendant's first-degree kidnapping convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence did not support a finding that Defendant had committed the second first-degree kidnapping charge. View "State v. Elder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals upholding Defendant's conviction for violating N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-208.11(a)(4) and remanded the case to the court of appeals for further remand to vacate Defendant's conviction for failure to comply with the sex offender registry, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support an inference that Defendant willfully provided information under false pretenses.Defendant was charged with submitting incorrect address information to the sheriff "willfully" and "under false pretenses." Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges on grounds that the State's evidence was insufficient to show that he had the requisite intent to deceive. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and convicted Defendant of violating The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support an inference that Defendant willfully provided information under false pretenses. View "State v. Lamp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals determining that the trial court committed prejudicial error in denying Defendant's request for a jury instruction on justification as a defense to the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the trial court did not err.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying Defendant's requested instruction on justification. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this case did not support all four elements of the justification defense as required by State v. Mercer, 838 S.E.2d 359 (N.C. 2020); and (2) therefore, the court of appeals erred in reversing Defendant's conviction and remanding for a new trial. View "State v. Swindell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction of felony obstructing of justice, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict finding Defendant guilty of felony obstruction of justice.After a nearly three-week-long jury trial, Defendant was convicted of, among other offenses, obtaining property by false pretenses and felony obstruction of justice. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that the State did provide substantial evidence of obstruction to support the felony obstruction of justice conviction. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the felony obstruction of justice conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of felony obstruction of justice. View "State v. Bradsher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the judgments entered upon Defendant's convictions for multiple serious felonies, including first-degree murder, holding that the record did not support the trial court's determination that Defendant's actions were sufficiently obstructive to constitute a forfeiture of his right to counsel.Defendant was indicted on charges of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and other crimes. The trial court decided before trial that Defendant's actions forfeited his opportunity to have assigned counsel, and Defendant proceeded pro se. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all offenses, and Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. The court of appeals awarded Defendant a new trial, determining that the trial court deprived Defendant of his constitutional right to counsel by concluding that he had forfeited that right. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial because he did not engage in the type of egregious misconduct that would permit the trial court to deprive him of his constitutional right to counsel. View "State v. Harvin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the court of appeal affirming the denial of Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari to the extent that this Court affirms the outcome reached by the lower appellate court without prejudice to Defendant to pursue any other legal remedy that has not been determined by the Court's opinion, holding that the superior court properly acted within its discretion in denying Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari.The court of appeals determined that only the superior court's order denying Defendant's certiorari petition, and not the order denying Defendant's motion to reinstate charges, was properly before the appellate court. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) a criminal defendant does not possess the right to compel the district attorney, who has the authority to place the defendant’s unresolved criminal charges in a dismissed-with-leave status, to reinstate the dismissed charges and to place the charges on a trial court’s criminal case calendar for resolution; and (2) a trial court lacks the authority to order that criminal charges that have been dismissed with leave by the district attorney be reinstated and placed on a trial court’s criminal case calendar against the will of the district attorney. View "State v. Diaz-Tomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that Defendant waived the right to appellate review of the trial court's denial of Defendant's request for a self-defense instruction, holding that Defendant properly preserved his challenge and that the trial court did not err by refusing to deliver the requested self-defense instruction.After the conclusion of the jury instruction conference and prior to the delivery of the trial court's instructions to the jury defense counsel requested that an instruction on self-defense to be given to the jurors. The trial court denied the request. The jury subsequently returned verdicts convicting Defendant of assault by strangulation and other offenses. Defendant appealed, challenging the trial court's rejection of his self-defense instruction. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant waived appellate review on the issue. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Defendant's challenge to the trial court's refusal to issue a self-defense instruction was properly preserved for appellate review; and (2) the trial court did not err in declining to instruct the jury on self-defense. View "State v. Hooper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals upholding the revocation of Defendant's probation, holding that Defendant's confrontation argument under N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1345(e) was not preserved.Defendant pleaded guilty to discharging a weapon into occupied property and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Later, Defendant's probation was revoked following a determination that he had committed new criminal offenses. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him at the probation hearing. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that there was no Sixth Amendment violation in this case. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the judgment below, holding (1) a defendant's arguments under N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1345(e) are preserved when a defendant lodges a proper objection or the trial court does not permit confrontation and fails to make a finding of good cause; and (2) the condition requiring a finding of good cause was not satisfied in this case. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law