Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine. The court of appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, concluding that Defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the trial court permitted a State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) special agent to testify that the substance found on Defendant was cocaine based solely on her supervisor's notes and lab report. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated where (1) the SBI agent presented an independent opinion formed as a result of her own analysis, not surrogate testimony; (2) Defendant was able to conduct a cross-examination that exposed the weaknesses in the agent's testimony; and (3) the supervisor's lab notes were not admitted into evidence. View "State v. Brewington" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of several drug-related counts. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's convictions for two counts of conspiracy to sell or deliver cocaine and one count of sale or delivery of cocaine, holding that the trial court violated Defendant's Confrontation Clause rights by admitting into evidence lab reports through the testimony of a substitute analyst. The Supreme Court agreed that there was a Confrontation Clause violation where the testifying analyst did not give her own independent opinion, but rather gave "surrogate testimony" reciting the testing analysts' opinions. The Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals' decision that Defendant was entitled to a new trial for the sale or delivery charge; but (2) reversed the court of appeals' decision vacating Defendant's conspiracy convictions, as those convictions were not affected by the erroneous admission of the substitute analyst's testimony. View "State v. Craven" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine and attaining a habitual felon status. The court of appeals reversed and awarded Defendant a new trial, holding that the testimony of a forensic scientist who stated her expert opinion that a substance was cocaine based upon her independent analysis of testing performed by another analyst in her labor violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant failed to preserve for appeal the issues he raised before the Court; and (2) even if Defendant had timely objected to the testimony at trial, he would not be entitled to a new trial because the trial court did not err in admitting the expert's opinion that the substance was cocaine, as the testimony did not violate Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. View "State v. Brent" on Justia Law

After a house on property belonging to a motorcross park caught fire, an investigator for property's insurer (Farm Bureau) found evidence of arson. The investigator's findings also included allegations that the park's president and sole shareholder (Volpe) had failed to report to Farm Bureau that there was a deed of trust on the property when she insured it and when she filed a claim of loss after the fire. Volpe was subsequently charged with obtaining property by false pretenses based upon her sale of the burned property to a purchaser who did not know it was encumbered. The trial court found Volpe was not involved in the fire, that Farm Bureau caused a criminal proceeding to be instituted against Volpe, and that Farm Bureau was liable to Volpe for malicious prosecution. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding that the insurance investigator's report to a law enforcement officer did not constitute the initiation of a malicious prosecution, and Farm Bureau's actions did not constitute an unfair and deceptive practice. View "N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cully's Motorcross Park, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were the parents of Defendant's former husband, Tyson. Defendant and Tyson began living on a twenty-three-acre parcel of land owned by Plaintiffs in 1984. Defendant and Tyson made several improvements to eight acres of the property, including building a bridge and adding heat and running water to the house. Tyson moved away from the property in 2001. When Tyson began divorce proceedings in 2008, Plaintiffs demanded that Defendant vacate the property. Defendant refused to do so. In 2010, Plaintiffs successfully filed a complaint for summary ejectment against Defendant. Defendant appealed and counterclaimed to quiet title by way of adverse possession. After a jury trial, the trial court found in favor of Plaintiffs. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that Defendant only possessed a portion of the twenty-three acre parcel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not state in her pleading that she possessed just a portion of the disputed partial or present evidence implying that she sought adverse possession of anything less than the twenty-three acres, Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on adverse possession of a portion of the property. View "Minor v. Minor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for appropriate relief based upon newly discovered evidence, alleging that, after the trial, Defendant's father told a probation officer that the contraband belonged to him. The trial court set aside Defendant's convicted and ordered a new trial, concluding that the father's post-trial statement constituted newly discovered evidence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that due diligence was used to procure the father's testimony at the trial, and the information implicating the father was available to Defendant before his conviction. Therefore, the trial court erred in concluding Defendant had newly discovered evidence. View "State v. Rhodes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Harvey and Barbara Parrish, alleging that Defendants negligently stored their firearm, which Defendants' fifty-two-year-old son Bernie stole from their home and used to shoot Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants knew or should have known that Bernie posed a risk of serious harm to Plaintiff yet failed to take reasonable steps to secure their guns so they were not accessible to Bernie. The trial court dismissed the case. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants did not have a common law duty to secure their firearms from Bernie. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendants did not owe Plaintiff a legal duty, and therefore, Defendants were not liable for the criminal conduct of their son. View "Bridges v. Parrish" on Justia Law

After filing for divorce from Defendant, Plaintiff sought alimony and attorney's fees. The district court ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff alimony but reserved the issue of attorney's fees for later determination. Defendant appealed, but the court of appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding (1) Defendant's unresolved request for attorney's fees rendered his appeal interlocutory, and (2) Defendant failed to have the order certified as immediately appealable under N.C. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the trial court's order was final and immediately appealable because attorney's fees were not part of the substantive claims; and (2) as a party to a final judgment on the merits, Defendant preserved his right to appeal by giving timely notice of his appeal. View "Duncan v. Duncan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sold a parcel of land adjacent to a golf club to New South Properties (New South) for development as a residential community. New South hired Hunter Construction Group (Hunter) to prepare the parcel for construction. Hunter built erosion control structures and devices, including a silt collection basin. However, a dam Hunter constructed to form the silt collection basin ruptured, causing mud, water, and debris to flood the golf course. As a result of the damage to the golf course, Plaintiffs filed an action against New South, Apple Creek and Hunter, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass, and violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA). The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the SPCA claim. Plaintiffs appealed and withdrew their appeal against all defendants except Hunter. The court of appeals affirmed. Without considering the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that because Hunter was never cited for a violation for section 113A-66 of the SPCA, Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a civil action against Hunter pursuant to section 113A-66. View "Applewood Props., LLC v. New S. Props., LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant was driving a vehicle that stopped in the middle of the road and appeared to initiate a three-point turn by beginning to turn left and continuing onto the shoulder of the road. A highway patrol trooper testified that these actions caused him to suspect that the driver was attempting to avoid a checkpoint. The trooper stopped the vehicle and approached the vehicle, whereupon he detected the odor of alcohol on Defendant. The trooper subsequently charged Defendant with driving while impaired. The trial court concluded that the checkpoint was valid and that the trooper had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Defendant and therefore denied Defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant pled no contest to driving while impaired. The court of appeals reversed the denial of the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress and vacated the resulting judgment, holding the checkpoint to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Defendant's stopping in the middle of the roadway and turning away from a license checkpoint gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Defendant may have been violating the law. View "State v. Griffin" on Justia Law