Loretta Copeland Biggs

The case involved the conviction of the defendant for robbery with a dangerous weapon after he was accused of using a knife to steal money from a convenience store cashier. The defendant appealed, claiming the trial court should have declared a mistrial due to a brief conversation between a prosecution witness and a juror, and that the jury should have been instructed on misdemeanor larceny as a lesser included offense based on his testimony that the incident was a staged theft planned with the cashier. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant had not properly preserved the mistrial issue for review and that the evidence did not support an instruction on larceny because it would instead suggest a different uncharged offense like embezzlement. The core reasoning was that plain error did not occur and the indictment and evidence did not align with the requested lesser offense instruction.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Taylor, defendant Donald Taylor was convicted of second-degree murder after his live-in girlfriend died from a gunshot wound to the neck; he claimed she had shot herself during an argument, but medical evidence showed the wound was not self-inflicted and occurred at a distance inconsistent with suicide. The trial court had disqualified his retained counsel due to a prior conflict of interest from representing the victim in a divorce action. On appeal, the court held that the disqualification did not violate the defendant's right to counsel of choice because the right is not absolute and must be balanced against the need for fair proceedings free of conflicts. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, citing the physical impossibility of self-infliction and precedent involving similar facts, and upheld the sentence within the presumptive range without requiring mitigation findings. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a tenured history professor at North Carolina State University who filed a grievance alleging that the department chair unfairly excluded him from a discretionary salary enhancement recommendation and class scheduling decisions due to personal reasons. The university grievance committee held hearings and concluded that the professor was treated fairly, leading the chancellor to dismiss the grievance with no remedial action required. The trial court vacated the dismissal, ruling that the professor had a protected interest in the salary process and that age bias influenced the decisions. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the professor lacked any statutory, regulatory, or contractual entitlement to the discretionary raise and thus had no due process rights at stake, while also noting that age discrimination was never properly presented in the grievance and could not be considered.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Myers v. Mutton, the plaintiff appealed a trial court order imposing sanctions on his counsel and requiring full compliance with a discovery order in an ongoing medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Mutton. The plaintiff had objected generally to broad interrogatories and document requests but produced only partial responses even after a motion to compel was granted. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the sanctions order was interlocutory because it did not finally resolve the case and the trial court had not certified it under Rule 54(b). The court further found that no substantial right would be lost absent immediate review, as discovery orders are generally not immediately appealable and the plaintiff had not identified any specific privilege or protected interest at stake.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Oliver, defendants Oliver and Moore were convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery in 1979 and initially received death sentences, which were vacated multiple times on appeal, leading to resentencing hearings. At the 2001 resentencing, the State did not seek the death penalty, so the trial court imposed life imprisonment sentences and ordered them to run consecutively for each defendant. The defendants appealed, arguing that the consecutive life sentences violated N.C.G.S. § 15A-1335 by being more severe than their original sentences. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences, holding that replacing death sentences with consecutive life sentences does not increase the severity of punishment under the statute because any life sentence is less severe than even one death sentence, and the law permits adjusting concurrent versus consecutive structures without exceeding the original individual penalties.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hobbs v. Clean Control Corp., plaintiff Brenda Hobbs appealed the North Carolina Industrial Commission's denial of her workers' compensation claim for carpal tunnel syndrome, which she attributed to her job demonstrating cleaning products through repetitive motions like spraying and wiping. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that Hobbs failed to prove her employment placed her at an increased risk of developing the condition compared to the general public, as required under N.C.G.S. § 97-53(13) for a compensable occupational disease. The court explained that the first two statutory elements are satisfied only if the job exposes the worker to greater risk than the public, and the Commission's findings on this point were supported by competent evidence, including medical testimony that changed based on differing job descriptions. The Commission, as the sole judge of witness credibility, was entitled to resolve conflicts in the evidence regarding the frequency of repetitive tasks, and its conclusions were therefore binding on appeal. The court also rejected the argument that any aggravation of a preexisting condition could qualify without the increased-risk showing.

labor & employment

This case involved a plaintiff who, as a minor, received $3,788 in Medicaid benefits for medical care after a car accident and later settled his personal injury claim for $25,000. The North Carolina Department of Human Resources sought reimbursement under state subrogation statutes, and the plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action arguing he was not a statutory "beneficiary" or "recipient" because the benefits were paid during his minority and the settlement funds were not allocated to medical expenses. The trial court ordered repayment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff qualified as a beneficiary under N.C.G.S. § 108A-57 and a recipient under N.C.G.S. § 108A-59 since assistance was provided on his behalf, that the state's lien vested upon acceptance of benefits, and that subrogation extends to all rights of recovery regardless of whether the settlement compensated medical costs. The court relied on the plain statutory language, definitions of recipient and beneficiary, and prior precedent allowing recovery from minors' settlements.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a 1997 car accident in which plaintiff Barton sued defendant Sutton for negligence and obtained a $50,000 default judgment after Sutton failed to respond to service. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, which provided uninsured motorist coverage, moved to intervene under Rule 24 and to set aside the default judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) and (6), arguing the judgment was void because it had not received the notice required by N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21. The trial court allowed intervention but denied the motion to set aside. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that lack of notice to the insurer did not render the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction or authority, and that Nationwide had not shown extraordinary circumstances or a meritorious defense warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

proceduretorts & liability

In Goodwin v. Webb, the plaintiff widow sued the executor of her deceased husband's estate to invalidate a 1999 separation and property settlement agreement she claimed was signed under duress, coercion, and threats of abuse; she sought a dissenting spouse's share and year's allowance from the estate. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on grounds that the plaintiff had ratified the agreement by accepting its benefits with full knowledge and without ongoing duress. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the record presented genuine issues of material fact as to ratification, including evidence that the plaintiff continued to fear physical harm until the husband's death and thus did not freely accept the benefits, as well as conflicting testimony about her understanding of the agreement.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In this case, Static Control Components, Inc. sued its former employee Vogler for breach of a non-compete agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets after he started a small toner cartridge remanufacturing business. The plaintiff obtained temporary injunctive relief but voluntarily dismissed the action after depositions showed no evidence that the defendant had disclosed any secrets or competed with the plaintiff. The trial court imposed Rule 11 sanctions on the plaintiff, concluding that the verified complaint was not based on reasonable inquiry, was not well grounded in fact, and was filed for the improper purpose of harassment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the lack of factual basis became clear during discovery and that the sanctions motion was filed within a reasonable time.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Sabrina Pitillo, an employee of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources, filed a workers' compensation claim alleging that a July 1997 performance review meeting with supervisors caused her to suffer stress-induced anxiety and a nervous breakdown, either as an injury by accident or an occupational disease. The Industrial Commission denied benefits, concluding that the meeting was not an unexpected or unusual event qualifying as an accident and that her psychological condition was not characteristic of or caused by her specific employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the Commission's findings were supported by competent evidence and that Pitillo failed to establish the necessary elements for compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act, including any increased risk from her job compared to the general public. The court also found that the Commission's failure to rule on a motion regarding a defense witness's fees was not prejudicial.

labor & employment

In Guthrie v. Conroy, a secretary sued her employer and a co-worker for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent retention and supervision, and civil assault, based on repeated unwanted physical contact and sexual comments by the co-worker that prompted her resignation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except the civil assault claim against the co-worker. On appeal, the court affirmed dismissal of the emotional distress and negligent supervision claims, finding insufficient evidence that the conduct caused severe distress or that the employer failed to respond adequately, but reversed summary judgment on whether the employer ratified the alleged civil assault, citing a genuine issue of material fact over the immediate supervisor's inaction. The opinion also resolved a procedural dispute, holding that the appeal was untimely from the original interlocutory order despite the later addition of Rule 54(b) language.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over modification of a child custody order following the parents' separation and divorce. The mother had primary physical custody under a 1997 order, but the father sought modification after learning of her engagement to a convicted child sex offender and her plan to relocate with the child to Virginia. The trial court granted the modification and awarded custody to the father, finding changed circumstances that posed a direct threat to the child's welfare. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the order affected a substantial right permitting immediate appeal and that the evidence supported a substantial change in circumstances warranting the custody change. A dissent argued the appeal was interlocutory and should be dismissed.

family lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Samuel James Thompson sued First Citizens Bank after borrowing $10,500 from the bank in 1998, purchasing a $10,000 CD as collateral, paying off the loan in 1999, and then being denied payment on the CD despite receiving a signed confirmation form acknowledging the deposit. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on his claim that the bank wrongfully dishonored the CD, ordering payment of the CD amount plus interest, while dismissing his unfair trade practices claim. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the CD confirmation created a binding contract and that the bank's affidavit claiming no deposit was made was inadmissible parol evidence that directly contradicted the unambiguous terms of the confirmation. The court further held that the CD was not a negotiable instrument under the UCC and that other documents or claims of mistake did not create a genuine issue of material fact. The plaintiff's separate appeal regarding attorney fees was dismissed for failure to file a brief.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a surety bondsman appealing the denial of his motion to remit a $7000 bond forfeiture after the defendant, arrested for obtaining property by false pretenses, failed to appear in court. The bondsman claimed extraordinary cause due to his efforts to locate the defendant in Georgia and notify North Carolina authorities, but the trial court found these efforts insufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the surety failed to demonstrate extraordinary cause under the statute because he did not personally attempt to retrieve the defendant and the state had no affirmative duty to assist in locating him. The court also overruled the judgment creditor's cross-assignment of error regarding the appeal's validity.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Linda M. Bailey against her temporary employer Western Staff Services and its insurer for an elbow injury sustained while working at Pharmagraphics in 1998. The Industrial Commission awarded her temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses after finding that the defendants had not properly admitted liability for the claim within the statutory timeframe and thus lacked the right to direct her medical treatment, while also determining that her injury rendered her unable to earn wages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the award, concluding that the Commission's findings of fact were supported by competent evidence in the record and that its conclusions of law followed from those findings under the applicable standards of review.

labor & employment

In Baker v. Showalter, the case centered on a dispute over child support arrears arising from a separation agreement incorporated into the parties' 1992 divorce judgment, which required the defendant to pay $500 per month until the child turned 18; the parties later made a verbal agreement, confirmed in a 1993 letter, to reduce payments to $300 per month, but the plaintiff later sought the full unpaid amounts. The trial court rejected the defendant's equitable estoppel defense and ordered her to pay $11,350 in arrears, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that child support orders may only be modified through formal judicial proceedings upon a showing of changed circumstances and cannot be altered by private oral or written agreements, and that equitable estoppel did not apply because the defendant failed to show detrimental reliance as she had retained and used the unpaid funds. The original separation agreement terms therefore remained binding, resulting in the arrears calculation based on the $500 monthly amount.

family law

In State v. Phillips, defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder of his estranged wife, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting evidence obtained during warrantless entries and searches of the marital home and that the short-form murder indictment was constitutionally insufficient. The court held that the initial police entry was a valid protective sweep following discovery of the victim's body, subsequent entries to secure the scene and collect evidence were justified by exigent circumstances, and the State had waived any standing challenge. It further ruled that the short-form indictment satisfied statutory and constitutional requirements under North Carolina precedent and U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Apprendi, as it adequately alleged first-degree murder and the maximum penalty. The court therefore found no error and affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a medical malpractice suit brought by Margaret Liborio after her husband Thomas died from complications, including pancreatitis, following an ERCP procedure performed by Dr. King to diagnose possible gallstones. The plaintiff appealed the jury verdict finding the defendant not liable and the denial of her motion for a new trial, arguing that the trial court should have instructed the jury that informed consent is invalid if based on a misrepresentation of a material fact and should have provided the jury with a written copy of the relevant informed consent statute upon request. The court affirmed the verdict and denial of the new trial motion, holding that the requested instruction was not required because the given instructions adequately addressed negligence claims related to informed consent, such as failure to disclose alternatives or risks, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in responding to the jury's vague request for "the written law." The decision rested on the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to show the requested instruction was a correct statement of law supported by the evidence or that its omission misled the jury.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case involved defendant Lewis Hannah, who was charged with first-degree burglary, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury after breaking into his estranged wife's apartment and assaulting her on New Year's Eve 1999. The jury convicted him of first-degree burglary and assault inflicting serious bodily injury but acquitted him of attempted murder. The appellate court upheld the burglary conviction but vacated the assault conviction and ordered a new trial, holding that assault inflicting serious bodily injury was not a lesser-included offense of the charged assault and thus could not be submitted to the jury. The court also ruled that evidence of the defendant's prior drug use was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive and ill will toward the victim.

criminal lawprocedure