Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals in this criminal sentencing case, holding that there was no error in the determination that Defendant's out-of-state conviction may be counted as an elevated felony classification for purposes of sentencing in North Carolina trial courts, as set forth in State v. Sanders, 367 N.C. 716 (2014).Defendant was found guilty of one count of sexual offense with a child by an adult. In sentencing Defendant, the trial court treated Defendant's Georgia statutory rape conviction as a Class B1 felony because the court regarding the Georgia statute under which Defendant was convicted was similar to North Carolina's statutory rape statute. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err as to finding substantial similarity between the Georgia and North Carolina statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly applied the comparative elements test in affirming the trial court's consideration of Defendant's previous Georgia conviction for statutory rape as equivalent to a North Carolina Class B1 felony for the purpose of the calculation of prior record level points in criminal sentencing. View "State v. Graham" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of multiple assaults against his girlfriend, holding that the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss all but one assault charge.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping and several counts of assault. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant asserted that there was insufficient evidence of multiple assaults such that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss all but one assault charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in the light most favorable to the State, Defendant committed multiple assaults against his girlfriend where the evidence tended to show that he beat her in her family's trailer and also in her car as they traveled home. View "State v. Dew" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the orders of the trial court imposing lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM) upon Defendant, holding that the court of appeals abused its discretion when it allowed Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari and invoked Rule 2 to review the SBM orders.Defendant was convicted of three counts of statutory rape of a child by an adult, two counts of statutory sex offense with a child, and three counts of taking indecent liberties with a child. The trial court ordered lifetime sex offender registration and SBM pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-208.40A(c). The court of appeals reached the merits of Defendant's SBM challenge and vacated the SBM orders without prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals abused its discretion by allowing Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari and invoking Rule 2 to review Defendant's challenge to the SBM orders. View "State v. Ricks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reinstated the order of the trial court imposing lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM) based upon Defendant's status as an aggravated offender, holding that the order complied with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and N.C. Const. art. I, 20.Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree statutory rape and first-degree statutory sexual offense. While Defendant was on probation, he sexually assaulted his minor niece. The trial court ordered Defendant to enroll in lifetime SBM and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the SBM program was constitutionally reasonable as applied to Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a search effected by the imposition of lifetime SBM upon a defendant due to his status as an aggravated offender is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) the SBM program does not violate Article I, Section 20 because SMB orders do not constitute general warrants. View "State v. Hilton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions of assault on a female and habitual misdemeanor assault, holding that Defendant received a fair trial free from error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court impermissibly expressed an opinion during jury instructions concerning facts to be decided by the jury. The court of appeals found no error and upheld Defendant's convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented evidence at trial that satisfied the elements of the predicate assault, and the court's instructions clarified that the jury was solely responsibly for making this determination; and (2) even if it is assumed that the trial court violated the statutory prohibitions against the expression of opinion, Defendant could not show a reasonable possibility of a different result. View "State v. Austin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that the trial court committed plain error by incorrectly instructing the jury on the conspiracy to commit first-degree murder charge against Defendant, holding that Defendant could not show that the error had a probable impact on the jury's finding that she was guilty.Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. The court of appeals granted Defendant a new trial on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder, concluding that the trial court plainly erred by instructing the jury on the conspiracy to commit first-degree murder charge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant could not show plain error. View "State v. Chavez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the portions of the motion for appropriate relief (MAR) court's order summarily dismissing Defendant's guilt-innocence phase ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims, vacated the portion of the order summarily ruling that Defendant's claim alleging he was impermissibly shackled in view of the jury was procedurally barred, and otherwise affirmed, holding that the court erred in part.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Defendant later filed an MAR petition and then a supplemental motion for appropriate relief. The MAR court dismissed Defendant's claims. The Supreme Court vacated the MAR court's order in part and remanded the matter to the court, holding (1) Defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his guilt-innocence phase IAC claims; and (2) Defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to obtain the facts necessary to determine whether Defendant's claim that he was impermissibly shackled was procedurally barred and, if not, whether it had merit. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a bag of narcotics seized from his vehicle during a traffic stop, holding that the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress.On appeal, Defendant argued that the law enforcement officers conducting a search for weapons on his person and in the areas of his vehicle under his immediate control did not possess the required reasonable suspension to initiate a warrantless search. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the law enforcement officer who conducted the traffic stop presented articulable facts at the suppression hearing giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous; and (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's request to suppress the controlled substances that were discovered as a result of the search of the areas of Defendant's vehicle which were under his immediate control. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions of felony trafficking in methamphetamine and misdemeanor simple possession of marijuana, holding that a defendant does not forfeit her Fifth Amendment right to silence if she complies with N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-905(c)(1) and gives notice of intent to offer an affirmative defense.Prior to trial, Defendant filed a notice of her intent to rely upon the affirmative defense of duress pursuant to section 15A-905(c)(1). The jury found Defendant guilty after a trial. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that because Defendant gave notice of her intent to assert the affirmative defense of duress before she testified, the trial court did not err in admitting, during the State's case-in-chief, a detective's testimony of Defendant's silence at the scene. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a defendant does not forfeit her Fifth Amendment right to silence if she gives pretrial notice of her intent to offer the affirmative defense of duress under section 15A-905(c)(1); and (2) the State may not preemptively impeach a defendant during its case-in-chief. View "State v. Shuler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of speeding ninety-four miles per hour in a sixty-five mile-per-hour zone, holding that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to a jury trial.In affirming Defendant's conviction, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals concluded that, even though the trial court failed to follow the statutory procedure for waiver of Defendant's right to a jury trial, Defendant was not prejudiced. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although the trial court's colloquy was untimely, the facts demonstrated that Defendant understood he was waiving his right to a trial by jury and the consequences of that decision; and (2) Defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating that there was no reasonable possibility that had the error not been committed a different result would have been reached in a bench trial or a jury trial. View "State v. Hamer" on Justia Law