Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In April 2017, Isaiah Scott Beck, Daniel Silva, and Javier Holloway planned to rob a drug dealer in Boone, North Carolina. They initially did not have a specific target in mind. However, through a series of text messages, the trio agreed to rob a particular dealer, Mackenzie Beshears. On the day of the robbery, Silva met Beshears in her apartment while Beck and Holloway, wearing all black clothing and face coverings, broke into the apartment. The North Carolina Supreme Court had to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support Beck's conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit felonious breaking or entering.The Court found that the evidence showed that the original plan was to rob Beshears in the parking lot, but that a new plan was formed in the time between Silva’s first and second appearances at the apartment complex. This new plan involved Silva entering Beshears’ apartment for the meeting, and Beck and Holloway breaking into the apartment. Therefore, a rational juror could find that Beck entered into two separate conspiracies: one to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon and another to commit felonious breaking or entering.As such, the Court concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Beck's motion to dismiss the charges against him, including the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. The Court therefore directed the Court of Appeals to reinstate Beck's conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. View "State v. Beck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Carolina heard a case regarding a traffic checkpoint where the defendant, Alvarez, was stopped, searched, and found in possession of illegal drugs. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was collected at an unconstitutional checkpoint. The trial court agreed with the defendant, ruling that the checkpoint violated the Fourth Amendment as the State failed to provide a valid primary programmatic purpose for it. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina disagreed, holding that the officers at the checkpoint had an independent reasonable suspicion to stop Alvarez's vehicle, thus no violation of his Fourth Amendment rights occurred. This suspicion was based on Alvarez's behavior and driving, including his failure to maintain lane control. The court emphasized that reasonable suspicion is an issue separate from the constitutionality of the checkpoint.The court concluded that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress and that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order. As a result, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court declined to comment on the constitutionality of the traffic checkpoint due to the presence of independent reasonable suspicion. View "State v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

In this case, the Plaintiff, Paul Steven Wynn, had sued Rex Frederick, in his official capacity as a magistrate, and Great American Insurance Company for negligence. The Plaintiff claimed that Frederick was negligent in sending a custody order to UNC Hospitals, instead of the Sheriff's Office, resulting in a delay in the involuntary commitment of the Plaintiff's nephew, who subsequently assaulted and paralyzed the Plaintiff.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that magistrates, as state officials, are not included in the phrase "other officers" under North Carolina General Statute § 58-76-5, which speaks to the waiving of sovereign immunity for certain officials covered by a statutory bond. The court came to this conclusion by examining the structure and history of the statute, which revealed that the statute only encompasses county officers and not state officers. As such, the court found that the statute does not waive the magistrate's sovereign immunity.Furthermore, the court held that judicial immunity applies to both official and individual capacity claims, contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which had limited the defense of judicial immunity to individual capacity claims only. The court, however, did not decide whether the magistrate's conduct in this case constituted a judicial act, as it found that the claim was independently barred by sovereign immunity. The decision of the Court of Appeals was therefore reversed. View "Wynn v. Frederick" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Carolina was tasked with interpreting N.C.G.S. § 14-208.12A, which allows for the removal of a registered sex offender from the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry ten years after initial registration. The defendant, Larry Fritsche, had argued that since he had registered as a sex offender in Colorado more than ten years ago, he was eligible for removal from the North Carolina registry. However, the trial court, using precedent set by the case In re Borden, denied his petition, stating that the ten-year period must be completed in North Carolina. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.Upon review, the Supreme Court also affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court determined that the term "county" in the relevant statutes refers to a county in North Carolina, not any state. The court also noted that the purpose of the Sex Offender Protection Registration Programs was to protect North Carolina communities, and this protection could not be ensured if sex offenders could avoid registering in North Carolina due to time spent on another state's registry. Therefore, the court held that the term "initial county registration" in section 14-208.12A requires ten years of registration in North Carolina, not simply ten years of registration in any state. View "State v. Fritsche" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the defendant, Jahzion Wilson, was charged with first-degree murder under the felony-murder theory, with the underlying felony being attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon. Wilson argued that he was entitled to a jury instruction on second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder. However, the court held that in order for a defendant to be entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense, there must be a conflict in the evidence of the underlying felony and the evidence must support the lesser-included offense. The defendant's own statements denying his involvement in the crime are not sufficient to create a conflict in the evidence. In this case, the court found that there was no conflict in the evidence supporting the underlying felony of attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, thus, Wilson was not entitled to an instruction on second-degree murder. The court modified and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

In North Carolina, Melvin Woolard Jr. was arrested by Captain Rodney Sawyer for driving while impaired (DWI). Before his trial, Mr. Woolard filed a motion to suppress evidence seized during the arrest, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause to suspect him of drunk driving. The District Court agreed and granted his motion. The State appealed the decision to the Superior Court, which also found that the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.The Supreme Court of North Carolina examined the evidence and found that Captain Sawyer had probable cause to arrest Mr. Woolard for impaired driving. The court noted that Mr. Woolard had been driving erratically, swerving over the centerline multiple times, and veering onto the road's shoulder. Additionally, the officer smelled alcohol on Mr. Woolard's breath and inside his truck, observed his red and glassy eyes, and heard his admission to having consumed some beers before driving. Mr. Woolard also exhibited all six possible indications of impairment on a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test administered by the officer.Based on these facts, the court concluded that an objectively reasonable officer in Captain Sawyer’s position would have suspected Mr. Woolard of impaired driving. Consequently, Mr. Woolard’s arrest satisfied the Fourth Amendment. The court therefore reversed the District Court's decision to suppress the evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Woolard" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Carolina was asked to determine whether defendant Cassie Herring, who was injured in a car accident, qualifies for benefits under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage of her mother and stepfather's automobile insurance policy. The policy defined an "insured" to include any "family member" who is a resident of the named insured’s household. The question was whether Herring was a "resident" of her mother's household.Herring was injured while riding in a car with her father, and the driver of the other car was insured. The other driver's insurance company tendered the limit of its policy to Herring. Herring then sought additional coverage under the UIM provision of her mother and stepfather's policy. The insurer, North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming that Herring was not a resident of her mother’s household and thus did not qualify for the UIM benefits.The trial court granted summary judgment for Herring and her parents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Farm Bureau appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, arguing that there were genuine issues of material fact about Herring’s residency.The Supreme Court of North Carolina agreed with Farm Bureau and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court held that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to Farm Bureau, raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Herring was a resident of her mother's household at the time of the accident. The court noted that there were discrepancies between Herring's testimony and the affidavits submitted by her and her parents, which created credibility issues that should be resolved by a jury. Therefore, the court concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Herring" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the defendant, Darren O'Brien Lancaster, was charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of "going armed to the terror of the public." The charges stemmed from incidents at two locations where Lancaster was reported to be waving a firearm and causing a disturbance. He was found guilty and sentenced to a minimum of fifteen months and a maximum of twenty-seven months in prison.On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the indictment charging Lancaster with "going armed to the terror of the public" was deficient because it did not allege that the crime occurred on a public highway, which the Court of Appeals considered to be a necessary element of the crime based on its previous decision in State v. Staten. As a result, the Court of Appeals vacated Lancaster's conviction for this charge and remanded the case for resentencing.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the crime of "going armed to the terror of the public" does not require the conduct to occur on a public highway. Rather, the elements of this common law crime are that the accused (1) went about armed with an unusual and dangerous weapon, (2) in a public place, (3) for the purpose of terrifying and alarming the peaceful people, and (4) in a manner which would naturally terrify and alarm the peaceful people. The Supreme Court found that the indictment against Lancaster adequately alleged facts supporting each of these elements. Therefore, the indictment was not deficient, and Lancaster's conviction for "going armed to the terror of the public" was reinstated. View "State v. Lancaster" on Justia Law

A minor, Freedom Morris, sought emergency treatment for appendicitis at Vidant Medical Center and was operated on by Dr. David Rodeberg. Despite complaining of severe pain after the surgery, Morris was discharged. He returned to the hospital a day later with a fever and sharp abdominal pain. A second surgery performed by a different doctor revealed that not all of the appendix had been removed during the first operation. This had caused a ruptured appendix and infection in Morris' body. Morris underwent a third surgery to drain a pelvic abscess.More than five years after the first surgery, Morris filed a lawsuit against Dr. Rodeberg and Vidant Medical Center alleging medical malpractice and medical negligence. The defendants responded with motions to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the lawsuit was filed outside the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims of persons who are over ten years old but under eighteen years old when their claims accrue. The trial court denied the defendants' motions, but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the three-year statute of limitations barred Morris' medical malpractice claims. The Court reasoned that while the North Carolina General Assembly has recognized that individuals under certain disabilities, including being a minor, are unable to appreciate the nature of potential legal claims and take appropriate action, subsection 1-17(c) of the North Carolina General Statutes eliminates the tolling of the medical malpractice claims of minors, except in certain situations. None of those exceptions applied to Morris' case, so his claim was subject to the standard three-year statute of limitations and was therefore time-barred. The Court did not address Morris' argument that the application of the three-year statute of limitations violated his constitutional right to equal protection of the laws because it did not have jurisdiction to review that issue. View "Morris v. Rodeberg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Carolina was required to decide whether a trial court can refuse to hear oral testimony during a summary judgment hearing on the mistaken belief that the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit the receipt of such testimony. The plaintiff, a corporation, had sued the defendants for breach of a commercial lease, and the defendants counterclaimed for fraud. During the summary judgment hearing, the trial court declined a request by the defendants to introduce live testimony, asserting that it was not permitted during a summary judgment hearing. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's summary judgment order and remanded the case, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a trial court errs if it fails to exercise its discretion under the misapprehension that it has no such discretion, referring to Rule 43(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure that allows for the introduction of live oral testimony during a summary judgment hearing at the discretion of the trial court. The court found that the trial court was mistaken in its belief that it could not allow oral testimony, and this error warranted vacatur and remand for reconsideration. The Supreme Court thereby modified and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to vacate the trial court's summary judgment order and remand the case. View "D.V. Shah Corp. v. VroomBrands, LLC" on Justia Law