In State v. Lewis, defendant Paul Brantley Lewis was convicted in 2003 of first-degree sexual offense, felonious breaking or entering, and robbery with a dangerous weapon based on evidence from a home invasion; after his first conviction was affirmed, a motion for appropriate relief revealed that the lead investigator had improperly communicated with a prospective juror (a deputy sheriff) about the defendant's failed polygraph and the need to "do the right thing," leading to a reversal and retrial. At the retrial in a different venue, the court limited the defendant's cross-examination of the investigator regarding bias and prior misconduct, denied a motion to suppress, and denied a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, resulting in another conviction. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial, ruling that the retrial court erred by restricting inquiry into the investigator's possible bias, that the law-of-the-case doctrine did not bar reconsideration of suppression issues, and that the defendant had waived his challenge to the denial of the motion to dismiss by presenting evidence without renewing the motion. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings, including a potential new trial.
This case involved plaintiff Joseph E. Teague, Jr., suing the North Carolina Department of Transportation and various officials in their official and individual capacities. Teague filed a petition asking the North Carolina Supreme Court to rehear a prior decision under Rule 31 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court dismissed the petition by order issued in conference on April 12, 2012. Justice Edmunds was recused from the matter. No further explanation or analysis of the underlying claims appears in the order.
In Teague v. DOT, plaintiff Joseph E. Teague, Jr. sought a writ of mandamus from the North Carolina Supreme Court against the state Department of Transportation. On January 3, 2012, Teague filed a motion for the petition, which the court considered in conference. On March 8, 2012, the court issued an order denying the motion. Justice Edmunds recused himself from the matter. The excerpt provides no further details on the underlying dispute or the basis for denial.
This case involves plaintiff Joseph E. Teague, Jr., who asked the North Carolina Supreme Court to review a lower-court decision in his dispute with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The matter before the Court was Teague's petition for a writ of certiorari, a request for discretionary review filed on January 3, 2012. On March 8, 2012, the Court denied the petition in a conference order, thereby declining to hear the case. No explanation for the denial was provided, and Justice Edmunds was recused from participation.
In State v. Choudhry, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder after evidence showed he and an accomplice beat the victim to death with a bat following a dispute involving the defendant's family. On appeal, the court examined whether the trial judge sufficiently inquired into a potential conflict arising from defense counsel's prior representation of a key prosecution witness, the defendant's ex-girlfriend who testified about his admissions. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the inquiry was inadequate to ensure the defendant knowingly waived the conflict but modified and affirmed the conviction because the defendant failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was adversely affected or that prejudice resulted. The court noted that counsel conducted a thorough cross-examination exposing the witness's inconsistencies, motives, and credibility issues without apparent restraint from the prior representation.
The case involved defendant Phillips, who, while intoxicated, went to a mobile home to buy drugs but instead robbed the residents at gunpoint, shot four people (killing three), directed his accomplice to stab others, set the residence on fire, and attempted to kill the surviving witness by stabbing and abandoning her. A jury convicted him of multiple counts of first-degree murder and related offenses and recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, holding that the trial was free from prejudicial error and that the sentence was not disproportionate because the murders formed part of a violent course of conduct involving robbery, arson, and kidnapping, similar to other cases upholding capital punishment despite some mitigating factors like mental disturbance.