Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant, a massage therapist, was accused of sexually assaulting a client during a massage session. The victim reported the incident to the police the day after it occurred, and the defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with one count of second-degree forcible sexual offense and one count of sexual battery. The defendant pleaded not guilty and the case went to trial. The jury found the defendant guilty of sexual battery but not guilty of second-degree forcible sexual offense. The defendant was sentenced to sixty days in custody, which was suspended, and placed on twenty-four months of supervised probation. He was also ordered to surrender his massage therapist license and register as a sex offender.The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the sexual battery charge because the indictment did not include the essential element of the offense being committed "by force." The Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, concluding that the indictment was invalid because it only expressly mentioned one of the essential elements of the crime.The case was then brought before the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The court disagreed with the Court of Appeals, stating that the indictment was valid because it implied the use of force and provided the defendant with adequate notice of the charge against him. The court noted that nonconsensual sexual contact necessarily implies the use of some degree of force. Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the indictment was facially valid and sufficiently alleged facts to place the defendant on notice of the charge against him. View "State v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Daniel Raymond Jonas was indicted for possession of a controlled substance after officers found methamphetamine in his car during a traffic stop. Jonas filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and subsequent search of his vehicle. The trial court denied the motion. Jonas then pleaded guilty without a plea agreement, also known as an "open plea." He did not give notice of his intent to appeal before entering his guilty plea, but minutes after sentencing, his counsel gave oral notice of appeal on the record.The Court of Appeals unanimously held that Jonas was not required to give notice of intent to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress prior to entering his guilty plea because he did not plead guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The Court of Appeals also held that the stop of Jonas's vehicle was unconstitutional, and that the trial court erred when it denied Jonas's motion to suppress.The Supreme Court of North Carolina was asked to extend the rule from State v. Reynolds, which requires a defendant to give notice of intent to appeal before finalizing plea negotiations, to cases where a defendant pleads guilty without a plea agreement. The court declined to do so, holding that when a defendant enters a guilty plea without a plea agreement, the defendant does not waive his or her right of appeal by pleading guilty without prior notice of intent to appeal. The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "State v. Jonas" on Justia Law

The case involves a defamation lawsuit filed by Louis M. Bouvier, Jr., Karen Andrea Niehans, Samuel R. Niehans, and Joseph D. Golden against William Clark Porter, IV, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC, Steve Roberts, Erin Clark, Gabriela Fallon, Steven Saxe, and the Pat McCrory Committee Legal Defense Fund. The plaintiffs were accused of voting in two states in an election protest filed by the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that these accusations, which were later proven to be false, defamed them and damaged their reputations.The case was initially heard in the Superior Court, Guilford County, where the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted as to the defendants' affirmative defenses, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied. The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's decision. The Court of Appeals held that the absolute privilege, which protects individuals from defamation claims for statements made in the course of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, applied to the election protests. However, the court also introduced a "participation" requirement, stating that the privilege only applied to those who participated as a party, counsel, or witness in the proceeding.The case was then reviewed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The court held that the absolute privilege broadly protects all individuals involved in any aspect of election protests from defamation claims. The court rejected the "participation" requirement introduced by the Court of Appeals, stating that the privilege applies to the occasion, not the individual. The court concluded that the defendants were protected by the absolute privilege and were therefore entitled to summary judgment. The court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the lower court for dismissal with prejudice. View "Bouvier v. Porter" on Justia Law

In August 2016, Chad Cameron Copley shot and killed Kourey Thomas as he crossed Copley's front yard. Copley was charged with first-degree murder and claimed self-defense and defense of habitation. The jury rejected these defenses and convicted him. Copley appealed, arguing that the prosecutor improperly mentioned race during closing arguments. The Supreme Court of North Carolina found no prejudicial error in the prosecutor’s remarks and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to consider Copley’s remaining claims.On remand, the Court of Appeals examined Copley’s three outstanding arguments. It rejected each, finding no gross impropriety in the prosecutor’s closing statements on the defense of habitation, no reviewable error in the trial court’s jury instruction on the aggressor doctrine and habitation defense, and no error in the jury instruction on first-degree murder by lying in wait. Copley challenged each of these rulings.The Supreme Court of North Carolina found no gross impropriety in the prosecutor’s closing arguments and only invited error in the trial court’s instruction on the habitation defense. The court also found no prejudicial error in the instruction on first-degree murder by lying in wait. Therefore, the court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision and upheld Copley’s conviction. View "State v. Copley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals that had vacated a conviction for second-degree rape due to a perceived deficiency in the indictment. The defendant, Charles Singleton, had been convicted of second-degree forcible rape, first-degree kidnapping, and felonious restraint. On appeal, Singleton argued that the indictment failed to allege that he knew or should have known that the victim was physically helpless, an essential element of the crime. The Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the rape conviction.The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an indictment is sufficient to invoke a court's jurisdiction as long as it charges a defendant with violating the laws of the state. The court found that the indictment in this case clearly alleged a crime and was not required to allege actual or constructive knowledge of the victim's physical helplessness. The court also noted that the legislature has consistently acted to eliminate technicalities in criminal pleadings that impede justice. The court concluded that a mere pleading deficiency in an indictment does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction. The court therefore reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated Singleton's conviction. View "State v. Singleton" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of plaintiffs who claimed that the defendant, Bank of America, fraudulently denied them mortgage modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and then foreclosed on their homes. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in May 2018 and their amended complaint in March 2019, alleging claims based on common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, conversion, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and, in the alternative, negligence.However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina found that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The court held that the statutes of limitations for all of plaintiffs’ claims, except for their unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, started to run at the latest by the date that each plaintiff lost his or her home. Each plaintiff lost his or her home sometime between April 2011 and January 2014. Thus, the latest point in time any plaintiff could have filed a complaint was January 2017, or in the case of an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, January 2018. Plaintiffs did not file their original complaint until May 2018. Therefore, their claims are time-barred.The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations for their fraud claims beyond the dates of their foreclosures. The court found that the plaintiffs were on notice of the defendant's alleged fraud by the time they lost their homes, and they should have investigated further. The court therefore reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. View "Taylor v. Bank of America, N.A" on Justia Law

In this case, Officer Ashton Lambert struck and killed Gregory Graham with his police cruiser while responding to a call. Graham's estate sued Lambert, the City of Fayetteville, and the Fayetteville Police Department, alleging negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death.The trial court denied the City and Lambert's motions for summary judgment, arguing that governmental and public officer immunity barred the estate's claims. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had improperly analyzed the summary judgment order. The Court of Appeals had focused on the sufficiency of the estate's complaint, rather than the presence of a genuine factual dispute. This was incorrect, as the court should have asked whether the evidence raised a genuine factual dispute on the existence and extent of the City’s waiver of immunity.The Supreme Court also found that the estate's claim that section 20-145 waived the city's governmental immunity failed as a matter of law. The statute, which exempts police officers from speed limits when chasing or apprehending criminal absconders, does not shield officers for their gross negligence. However, the statute does not contain clear language withdrawing immunity from a discrete government body.The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to analyze whether there was a genuine issue of material fact on whether the City waived governmental immunity by purchasing liability insurance. The court also clarified that section 20-145 does not waive the City’s governmental immunity for its officers’ grossly negligent driving. The Estate’s claim against the City remains intact unless otherwise waived by the purchase of liability insurance. View "Est. of Graham v. Lambert" on Justia Law

The case before the Supreme Court of North Carolina involved a dispute between The Society for the Historical Preservation of the Twentysixth North Carolina Troops, Inc. (plaintiff) and the City of Asheville (defendant). The controversy centered around a monument dedicated to Zebulon Vance, a former North Carolina Governor and Confederate Colonel. The plaintiff, a nonprofit historical preservation organization, raised funds to restore the monument and entered into a donation agreement with the City, whereby the monument was restored and then donated to the City. However, the City later decided to remove the monument, citing it as a public safety threat due to vandalism and threats of toppling.In response, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the City, alleging that the City breached the 2015 donation agreement and seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and a declaratory judgment. The plaintiff argued that both parties had entered into a contract with the intent to preserve the monument in perpetuity. The City filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The trial court granted the City's motion, and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.When the case reached the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the court reversed the Court of Appeals’ determination that the plaintiff's breach of contract claim should be dismissed for lack of standing. However, the court noted that the plaintiff had abandoned the merits of its breach of contract claim in its appeal. As such, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and declaratory judgment for lack of standing. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to assert any ground for which it has standing to contest the removal of the monument. View "Soc'y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twenty-sixth N.C. Troops, Inc. v. City of Asheville" on Justia Law

During an investigation of a stolen car, law enforcement officers followed a suspect into a nearby home where they discovered an illegal drug operation. One of the participants in the operation, the defendant, did not live at the residence and denied any ownership or control over the premises or the objects within, including a safe containing illegal items. The homeowner, who was also the defendant's uncle, consented to the search of the home. After the defendant was convicted of several drug-related offenses, he appealed, arguing that the evidence should have been suppressed because the police entered the home without a warrant.The Supreme Court of North Carolina was tasked with deciding if the defendant had standing to challenge the warrantless entry into the home, given that he had declared he did not live there. The Court of Appeals had previously reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, stating that the trial record did not support any finding that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the evidence presented at the suppression hearing could support findings that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search. The court, however, noted that the trial court failed to make these findings despite the presence of materially conflicting evidence in the trial record. The case was remanded to the trial court for findings of fact based on the trial record. Depending on those findings, the trial court could again deny the motion to suppress, or it may grant the motion to suppress in whole or in part and order a new trial. View "State v. Jordan" on Justia Law

In this North Carolina Supreme Court case, the plaintiff, Robin Kluttz-Ellison, was an employee at Noah’s Playloft Preschool. She filed workers’ compensation claims for two separate workplace accidents – one where she fell off a ladder and another where she tripped over a cot. Before these incidents, Kluttz-Ellison had had knee surgery and had been diagnosed with obesity. After the accidents, her healthcare providers determined that she needed knee surgery again due to loosening of the hardware in her knee. However, they believed the surgery could only be performed if she lost a significant amount of weight. They recommended bariatric weight-loss surgery, believing it was the only treatment that could achieve the necessary weight loss quickly.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that for an employee to receive workers' compensation for a medical treatment, the treatment must be directly related to the workplace injury. This means there must be a sufficiently strong causal relationship between the condition that requires treatment and the workplace injury. The court identified three criteria to meet this standard: 1) the workplace injury caused the condition that requires treatment, 2) the condition was aggravated by the workplace injury, or 3) the condition did not require medical treatment before the workplace injury but now requires treatment solely due to the workplace injury.In this case, the Court noted that neither the Industrial Commission nor the Court of Appeals applied this test. Instead, they focused on whether the bariatric surgery was medically necessary for the plaintiff to undergo knee surgery. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings applying the correct legal standard. View "Kluttz-Ellison v. Noah's Playloft Preschool" on Justia Law