Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Between December 2012 and March 2015, the defendant met several women, including A.C., H.M., A.B., and M.F., and supplied them with heroin, leading to their addiction. The defendant used heroin to coerce the women into prostitution, which he and his wife arranged through online advertisements on Backpage. The women paid the defendant for heroin and basic needs, often more than the heroin's worth. The defendant withheld drugs, food, sleep, and communication means from the women, occasionally locking them in his basement or hotel rooms. He transported the women across North Carolina and to other states for prostitution.The defendant was indicted and convicted of multiple counts of human trafficking, promoting prostitution, conspiracy to promote prostitution, and attaining habitual felon status. The trial court sentenced him to 240 to 312 years in prison and required him to register as a sex offender. The defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a divided opinion finding no error in the trial court's judgments. The dissenting judge argued that human trafficking is a continuing offense and that the defendant should only be convicted of a single count of human trafficking per victim.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the statutory language of N.C.G.S. § 14-43.11 is clear and unambiguous, allowing for multiple counts of human trafficking per victim. Each distinct act of recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing, or obtaining a victim constitutes a separate offense. The court also found that the trial court erred in calculating the defendant's prior record level but concluded that this error did not prejudice the defendant, as his federal firearms conviction is substantially similar to a Class G felony in North Carolina. View "State v. Applewhite" on Justia Law

Travis Davenport was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon and first-degree murder of Mike Griffin. The evidence showed that Davenport and Griffin had a tumultuous relationship, culminating in a physical altercation. On the night before Griffin's murder, Davenport was seen at Griffin's home, and they exchanged several phone calls. The next morning, Griffin was found dead with multiple stab wounds, and his wallet and phone were missing. Davenport was later arrested, and another inmate testified that Davenport confessed to killing Griffin to steal $10,000 from him.In Superior Court, Martin County, Davenport's motion to dismiss the robbery charge was denied, and he was convicted of both charges. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the State had not presented substantial evidence for the robbery charge and that the admission of evidence regarding Davenport's prior incarceration, gang affiliation, and tattoos constituted plain error. The appellate court also found that a hearsay statement, "Dianne to the house," was inadmissible.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the State had presented substantial evidence for each element of the robbery with a dangerous weapon charge and Davenport's identity as the perpetrator. The Court also ruled that the admission of evidence related to Davenport's prior incarceration, gang affiliation, and tattoos did not amount to plain error, as it did not prejudice the jury's decision. Lastly, the Court determined that the statement "Dianne to the house" was admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. View "State v. Davenport" on Justia Law

Circle of Seven, LLC, left a Dodge Ram truck on a foreclosed property. The new property owner hired Bottoms Towing & Recovery to remove the truck. Bottoms Towing later sought to sell the truck to cover unpaid towing and storage fees. Circle of Seven contested the sale and the lien amount, arguing that the towing company had used the truck without authorization, which should reduce the lien.The Superior Court of Nash County held a hearing where Circle of Seven presented testimony from its managing member and an employee. The court found that Bottoms Towing had driven the truck and made unnecessary alterations, reducing the lien by $1,427.14 for maintenance and $62.50 for unauthorized use. Circle of Seven appealed, claiming the reduction was insufficient.The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, with a divided opinion. The majority found that the trial court's findings were supported by competent evidence. The dissent argued that Bottoms Towing unlawfully converted the truck for personal use and that the lien should be reduced based on the truck's loss in market value due to this conversion.The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the dissent. The Court held that it could not address the dissent's theory because Circle of Seven had not raised the conversion argument or presented evidence on the truck's value in the lower courts. The Court emphasized that appellate courts should not address issues not raised by the parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Bottoms Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Circle of Seven, LLC" on Justia Law

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina issued an executive order limiting attendance at outdoor venues to twenty-five people. Robert Turner, who operated Ace Speedway in Alamance County, publicly opposed these restrictions and kept the racetrack open. This led to a series of events where Governor Cooper allegedly pressured local officials to enforce the order against Ace Speedway, culminating in the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issuing an abatement order to shut down the racetrack as a health hazard.The Superior Court of Alamance County initially issued a preliminary injunction against Ace Speedway, prohibiting it from holding events until it complied with the abatement order. Ace Speedway and its operators counterclaimed, alleging constitutional violations, including the right to earn a living and selective enforcement. The trial court denied the State’s motion to dismiss these counterclaims, and the State appealed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, allowing the case to proceed.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that Ace Speedway sufficiently alleged colorable claims under the North Carolina Constitution. The allegations suggested that the State's actions were not for a proper governmental purpose but to retaliate against Turner for his public criticism, thus violating the right to earn a living. Additionally, the selective enforcement claim was deemed colorable because Ace Speedway alleged it was targeted while other similar venues were not, based on Turner’s exercise of his First Amendment rights. The Court concluded that these claims were sufficient to overcome the State’s sovereign immunity at this stage. View "Kinsley v. Ace Speedway Racing, Ltd" on Justia Law

Debra Cullen sued Logan Developers, Inc. for injuries sustained when she fell through a hole in her attic floor, which the defendant had cut to provide access to the home’s air handler. Cullen admitted she did not look before stepping backward into the hole, despite knowing it was unsafe to walk on non-floored parts of the attic. The hole was covered with insulation, making it an open and obvious risk.The Superior Court of Brunswick County granted summary judgment in favor of Logan Developers, finding Cullen contributorily negligent for failing to look where she was stepping and determining there were insufficient facts to support a claim of gross negligence. The Court of Appeals vacated this decision, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Cullen’s knowledge of the attic’s condition and whether Logan Developers’ actions constituted gross negligence.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that Cullen was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because the hole was an open and obvious risk that she could have avoided by exercising reasonable care. The court also found that Logan Developers did not exhibit the conscious disregard for Cullen’s safety necessary to prove gross negligence, even if they violated the North Carolina Building Code. Therefore, the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Logan Developers was reinstated. View "Cullen v. Logan Developers, Inc" on Justia Law

In this juvenile proceeding, the Pitt County Department of Social Services (DSS) received several reports in 2021 regarding the respondent mother’s interactions with her children, Amanda, Jade, and Juliet. Incidents included the mother breaking a car window to reach Jade, hitting her with a belt, and leaving her outside in cold weather. DSS filed petitions alleging neglect and dependency for the children. The trial court admitted statements from Jade, who did not testify, and concluded that all three children were neglected and that Jade and Juliet were dependent.The District Court of Pitt County entered an order based on these findings. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that many of the trial court’s findings were based on inadmissible hearsay and reversed the trial court’s order, remanding the case with instructions to dismiss the juvenile petitions. The Court of Appeals held that the remaining findings were insufficient to support the trial court’s conclusions of neglect and dependency.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and found that the Court of Appeals did not adequately examine whether the remaining findings supported the trial court’s conclusions or whether the record contained sufficient evidence to support necessary findings. The Supreme Court determined that while some findings were unsupported, the record contained clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that could support the necessary findings for neglect and dependency adjudications. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings, allowing the trial court to enter a new order based on the existing record or conduct further proceedings as necessary. View "In re A.J., J.C., J.C" on Justia Law

Alison Arter purchased land from Stephen and Sharon Burt in Orange County, which included a home and a horse farm. The Burts retained ownership of an adjacent property. In 2020, a developer sought to subdivide the Burts' property to build homes, planning a road along the property line next to Arter's land. Arter argued that a thirty-foot buffer was required between the road and her property based on the zoning ordinances. The Orange County Planning & Inspections Department disagreed, stating no buffer was needed as both properties were zoned "R-1" residential.Arter appealed to the Orange County Board of Adjustment, which upheld the department's decision. She then sought judicial review in Superior Court, which also affirmed the decision. Arter appealed to the Court of Appeals, where a divided panel ruled. The majority held that the zoning ordinances required buffers only between different zoning districts, not within the same district, thus affirming the lower court's decision. The dissent argued that the accompanying table suggested buffers were required based on land use, necessitating further fact-finding.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. The Court held that the text of the zoning ordinance, which required buffers based on zoning districts, controlled over any conflicting information in the accompanying table. Since both properties were zoned "R-1," no buffer was required. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, agreeing that the zoning ordinances were unambiguous and did not mandate a buffer between the properties. View "Arter v. Orange County" on Justia Law

On April 4, 2021, Latoyna Dunlap approached Angela Benita Phillips' home, believing Phillips had complained about her to their landlord. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts of Dunlap's demeanor and the events that followed. A confrontation ensued, during which Phillips either slapped Dunlap or struck her with a gun. Phillips then fired multiple shots at Dunlap, one of which caused severe injuries. Phillips was arrested and indicted for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. At trial, Phillips claimed self-defense and defense of habitation, requesting relevant jury instructions.The Superior Court of Cumberland County, presided over by Judge James F. Ammons, Jr., expressed concerns about the castle doctrine instruction, suggesting it might allow excessive force. The court modified the instruction to include a prohibition on excessive force, despite objections from Phillips' counsel. The jury found Phillips guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and she was sentenced to 25 to 42 months in prison. Phillips appealed the decision.The North Carolina Court of Appeals, in a divided panel, vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, agreeing with Phillips that the trial court's instruction on excessive force was erroneous and confusing. The majority held that under the castle doctrine, excessive force is impossible unless the State rebuts the presumption of reasonable fear. One judge dissented, arguing that the statutory castle doctrine defense aligns with common law defenses, including the prohibition against excessive force.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and clarified the castle doctrine. The court held that the statutory presumption of reasonable fear under the castle doctrine can only be rebutted by specific circumstances listed in the statute. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding of instructional error but vacated its prejudice determination, remanding for proper consideration of whether the error prejudiced Phillips. View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over visitation rights between a mother and her three children, Anna, Chris, and Margaret. The Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had investigated the mother and the father of Anna for maintaining an injurious environment and neglecting the children through improper discipline. The parents admitted to forcing Margaret to stand in a corner for many hours, whipping her with a belt, and making her sleep on a bare floor. The trial court adjudicated Margaret as abused and neglected, and Anna and Chris as neglected. The mother had not entered a case plan with DHHS for reunification with any of her children by the time of the November 2019 disposition order.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order, stating that the trial court improperly admitted some hearsay evidence. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's reasoning was so heavily reliant on the hearsay evidence that the proper remedy was to vacate the trial court's order and remand for a new hearing with respect to Margaret. The Court of Appeals also ordered the trial court to dismiss the petitions directed at Margaret's younger siblings.The Supreme Court of North Carolina disagreed with the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had made numerous errors, including misstating the standard of review, requiring the trial court to make specific findings for each parent regarding unfitness or conduct inconsistent with their parental rights, and addressing the constitutional rights of respondents without any briefing or argument from the parties. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case directly to the trial court for further proceedings. View "In re A.J.L.H., C.A.L.W., M.J.L.H." on Justia Law

The case involves Joseph Askew, Charlie Gordon Wade III, and Curtis Washington, who sued the City of Kinston, North Carolina, alleging that the city's condemnation and demolition of their properties violated their rights under the state constitution. The plaintiffs, who are African American, claimed that the city targeted properties owned by African Americans or located in predominantly African American neighborhoods, while ignoring similarly dilapidated properties owned by Caucasians or located in predominantly Caucasian neighborhoods.The Superior Court of Lenoir County granted summary judgment in favor of the city, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals vacated the lower court's decision, ruling that the plaintiffs had to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing a direct action under the state constitution. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.The Supreme Court of North Carolina vacated the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies does not dictate jurisdiction over direct actions under the state constitution. The court explained that the authority to hear such claims flows from the constitution itself. The court also found that the Court of Appeals had erred by treating the plaintiffs' separate constitutional claims as the same. The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for a standard de novo review of the merits of the trial court's summary judgment order. View "Askew v. City of Kinston" on Justia Law