Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The district court entered an ex parte Domestic Violence Order of Protection (DVPO) against Defendant under N.C. Gen. Stat. 50B-3. The court ordered Defendant in the DVPO to surrender his firearms and ammunition and further ordered that law enforcement officers shall search “Defendant’s person, vehicle and residence and seize any and all weapons found.” When officers served the DVPO on Defendant at his residence, they entered the house to execute the search for weapons. Once inside the home, officers found a marijuana growing operation. Defendant was subsequently charged with drug-related offenses. The superior court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence.The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) the relevant DVPO statutes do not authorize the district court to order a general search of Defendant’s person, vehicle, and residence for weapons; and (2) the ex parte DVPO was not a de facto search warrant. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed, holding (1) section 50B-3(a)(13) does not authorize the district court to order a search of a defendant’s residence under a civil DVPO; and (2) because the search of Defendant’s home was conducted without a warrant or any articulable exception to the warrant requirement, it violated Defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights. View "State v. Elder" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for one count of first-degree statutory rape, first-degree statutory rape, and first-degree sex offense with a child. During jury deliberations, the jurors sent two consecutive notes to the court indicating that they were deadlocked. The judge instructed the jurors to continue with their deliberations. The jury eventually found Defendant guilty of one count of first-degree statutory rape but failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the remaining two counts. The trial court declared a mistrial as to the two counts on which the jury deadlocked. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial court’s instructions to the jury violated N.C. Gen. Stat. 5A-1235(c), which sets out procedures a trial court may follow when a jury is deadlocked, and that the error resulted in an unconstitutional coercion of a deadlocked jury.The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because Defendant failed to object to the instructions, any error was not preserved and was subject to plain error review; and (2) applying this standard, the trial court’s instructions did not result in an unconstitutional coercion of a deadlocked jury. View "State v. May" on Justia Law

Defendant’s predecessor in title ("Wayne") owned two tracts of land (“Wayne Tracts”). Park Creek, LLC held adjacent land. Under a pre-approved plan, Wayne and the LLC began constructing a development plan for a residential subdivision using land owned by both Wayne and the LLC. When Wayne conveyed his property to Defendant, his revocable trust of which he was the trustee, future phases of the subdivision remained undeveloped. The Town of Midland later filed two condemnation actions against Defendant condemning three acres of Defendant’s property necessary for an easement. The trial court determined that no unity of ownership existed as to the contiguous tracts of land owned by Defendant and Park Creek, LLC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that no unity of ownership existed between the Wayne Tracts and the LLC Tract for the purpose of determining compensation. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that, where Defendant and the LLC had a vested right to complete the subdivision pursuant to the pre-approved plan, unity of ownership existed between the adjacent properties. View "Town of Midland v. Wayne" on Justia Law

This action stemmed from an automobile accident in which Justin Ward, operating a car owned by his mother, Sheena Ward, collided with a vehicle driven by Luis Carmona. Sheena filed suit against Carmona seeking damages for his alleged negligence. Carmona filed an answer and a third-party complaint naming Justin as a third-party defendant. A jury found both Carmona and Justin negligent and denied Sheena any relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the jury’s verdict finding both Carmona and Justin negligent in the operation of their vehicles; and (2) the Court of Appeals did not create a new theory of motor vehicle negligence inconsistent with North Carolina statutes and case law. View "Ward v. Carmona" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for the first-degree murders of three women, including Heather Catterton and Randi Saldana. Defendant was first tried capitally for the Catteron murder, which was the matter at issue in this appeal. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder. The jury recommended, and the trial court entered, a sentence of death. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court erred by (1) allowing admission of an excessive amount of the Saldana murder evidence under N.C. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) allowing Saldana’s sister to testify about Saldana’s good character; and (3) allowing the prosecution to argue without basis to the jury that defense counsel had in effect suborned perjury. Further, the cumulative effect of these three errors deprived Defendant of a fair trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Hembree" on Justia Law

In 1973, Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary for which he was sentenced to imprisonment “for his natural life.” In 2011, Defendant filed a pro se motion for appropriate relief (MAR) asking the trial court to set aside his sentence on the burglary charge as cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court granted Defendant’s MAR, vacated the judgment in the second-degree burglary case, and resentenced Defendant to a term of thirty years. After giving credit for time served, the trial court ordered that Defendant be immediately released. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the original 1973 judgment and commitment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court of appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the State’s appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals has subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the State of an MAR when the defendant has won relief from the trial court. View "State v. Stubbs" on Justia Law

The North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission recommended that Brenda G. Branch, a judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Judicial District 6A, should be publicly reprimanded for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute and which violates the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. The recommendation was based on the Commission’s findings that Branch engaged in misconduct that resulted from insufficient inquiry into her obligations regarding a certain case and her insufficiently-based conclusions regarding the parties. The Supreme Court adopted the Commission’s findings and concluded that Branch be publicly reprimanded. View "In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge" on Justia Law

In 2013, Duke Energy Carolinas filed an application with the North Carolina Utilities Commission requesting authority to adjust and increase its North Carolina retail electric service rates. The Commission entered an order granting a $234,480,000 annual retail revenue increase, approving a 10.2 percent return on equity (ROE), and authorizing the use the single coincident peak (“1CP”) cost-of-service methodology. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission made sufficient findings regarding the impact of changing economic conditions upon customers, and these findings were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in view of the entire record; (2) the use of 1CP did not unreasonably discriminate against residential customers; and (3) no improper costs were included in the Commission’s order. View "State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Cooper" on Justia Law

When two detectives were parked in Defendant’s driveway, they saw three potted marijuana plants within the home’s curtilage. The detectives seized the plants before returning the next day with a warrant to search Defendant’s home. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the seized plants, claiming that discovery of the plants was the product of an illegal search and seizure. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the seizure of the plants violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the detectives’ seizure was justified under the plain view doctrine and supported by exigent circumstances. View "State v. Grice" on Justia Law

Following the census conducted in 2010, the General Assembly enacted redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives and for the North Carolina districts for the United States House of Representatives. Plaintiffs sought to have the redistricting plans declared invalid on constitutional and statutory grounds. The trial court concluded that the General Assembly applied traditional and permissible redistricting principles to achieve partisan advantage and that no constitutional violations occurred. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed as to the twenty-six districts drawn to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, holding that the trial court erred when it applied strict scrutiny before making adequate findings of fact, but because the trial court correctly found that each of the twenty-six districts survived strict scrutiny, the case need not be remanded for reconsideration under what may be a less demanding standard of review; and (2) affirmed as to the remaining challenged districts. View "Dickson v. Rucho" on Justia Law