Robert Holt Edmunds jr

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

procedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

procedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal law

In State v. Sargeant, the defendant was tried and convicted on charges including first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, first-degree kidnapping, and burning personal property arising from the 2005 killing of Stephen Harrington. The trial court excluded a hearsay statement by participant Matthew Dalrymple that identified codefendant Kyle Triplett, rather than the defendant, as the instigator who bound, assaulted, and killed the victim. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings lacked support in competent evidence and that the full record did not sustain its legal conclusions, rendering the exclusion erroneous and prejudicial to the defense because the case turned on witness credibility and the jury lacked relevant evidence about the events. The Court therefore modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing the convictions and remanding for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could not convict a defendant of both first-degree murder (based on acting in concert and aiding and abetting) and accessory after the fact to murder. The defendant was convicted of both offenses after evidence showed he drove the shooter to the scene and later helped dispose of the weapon, but the trial court arrested judgment on the accessory conviction and imposed a life sentence for murder. The Court of Appeals held that the omission was plain error requiring a new trial, but the Supreme Court reversed, concluding there was no plain error because the defendant did not timely object, the evidence overwhelmingly supported the murder conviction, and the jury's verdicts showed it intended to hold the defendant fully accountable. The court further noted that the defendant suffered no prejudice from the accessory conviction since judgment on it had been arrested.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute in which plaintiff James W. Powell Jr. sued the City of Newton alleging trespass and wrongful cutting of trees on his property by the city's agents, after which the city sought indemnification from its contractors. During trial, the parties announced an oral settlement in open court under which Powell would quitclaim his interest in the disputed land in exchange for $40,000, and the trial judge directly confirmed Powell's knowing agreement to those terms before dismissing the jury. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the settlement was enforceable despite the lack of a signed writing required by the statute of frauds for land transfers. The court reasoned that judicial estoppel barred Powell from reneging on his in-court ratification because doing so would allow him to evade a freely made obligation and undermine the finality and integrity of judicial proceedings.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Waring, defendant Byron Lamar Waring was tried and convicted of first-degree murder for the November 2005 stabbing death of Lauren Redman in her Raleigh apartment, during which she suffered dozens of wounds including to her torso and neck; he was sentenced to death after the jury found aggravating circumstances such as the murder being especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel and part of a course of conduct involving violence against another. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court examined the trial record, including police investigation, the victim's injuries as detailed by the medical examiner, the defendant's multiple statements to detectives describing his and a codefendant's actions, and procedural rulings on evidence admission. The court held there was no prejudicial error in the conviction or sentencing proceeding and, after proportionality review comparing the facts to prior capital cases, concluded the death sentence was not disproportionate.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Alford Jones, who was convicted of first-degree murder in 1975 and sentenced to life imprisonment, which a statute at the time defined as a term of eighty years. Jones petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his accumulated good time, gain time, and merit time credits entitled him to unconditional release from prison. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the superior court's order granting relief, holding that Jones remained lawfully incarcerated. The court reasoned that while the statute set the sentence length, the Department of Correction had statutory authority to administer sentences and limit the application of such credits to purposes other than calculating an unconditional release date for life sentences, and these limitations were permissible under state law.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved homeowners who alleged that the Town of Apex negligently restored water service to their unoccupied property after a real estate agent's request, causing flooding damage when an open bathtub spigot allowed water to overflow for several days. The trial court dismissed the negligence claim against the town under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to adequately plead a duty of care, but the Court of Appeals reversed in a divided opinion, and the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed that reversal. The court held that the complaint's allegations—that the town's agent knocked without response, turned on the water, confirmed the meter was running, and left without further precautions—sufficiently stated facts showing a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm under liberal notice pleading standards, creating a duty to exercise due care to prevent damage. The decision was limited to the pleading stage and did not address other elements of negligence or impose broader investigative duties on water suppliers absent the specific circumstances alleged.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a negligence lawsuit filed by a mother on behalf of her infant son against Transylvania Community Hospital and Abbott Laboratories after the baby suffered permanent brain damage from meningitis allegedly caused by contaminated powdered infant formula. Out-of-state attorneys admitted pro hac vice to represent the plaintiff had their admissions revoked by the trial court after findings that they made improper ex parte contact with one of Abbott's consulting experts in a related Kentucky case, creating an appearance of impropriety. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under N.C.G.S. § 84-4.2 in revoking the admissions, reversing the Court of Appeals. The court reasoned that trial courts possess inherent authority to regulate attorneys and control proceedings, and that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not restrict this discretion to revoke pro hac vice status when counsel's conduct warrants it.

procedure

In State v. Jacobs, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule after a jury trial found him guilty of shooting the victim during a confrontation at a gas station over an unpaid debt for pit bull puppies. The trial court had excluded evidence of the victim's prior armed robbery convictions and certain testimony about the victim's character and reputation for carrying weapons. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the defendant failed to preserve several evidentiary objections for review by making offers of proof and that any error in excluding the conviction records was not prejudicial. The court reasoned that abundant other evidence showed the defendant knew he was confronting armed men and initiated the encounter by demanding money, so there was no reasonable possibility of a different verdict if the excluded evidence had been admitted.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Wilkerson, the defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder (of Casey Dinoff and Christopher VonCannon) on theories of malice, premeditation, and deliberation as well as felony murder, along with first-degree burglary, after evidence showed he shot the unarmed victims multiple times inside their home following a dispute over stolen drugs. The jury recommended a death sentence following a capital sentencing proceeding. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the trial record and concluded that the proceedings were free from prejudicial error. The court further held that the death sentence was not disproportionate, citing factors such as the multiple victims, the location of the murders in the victims' home, the use of semiautomatic rifles, premeditation, and the presence of statutory aggravating circumstances.

criminal law

In State v. Lopez, the defendant was convicted after a car crash caused by drunk driving that killed one victim and injured another, leading to charges including second-degree murder, felony death by vehicle, and assault. During the sentencing phase, the prosecutor argued to the jury about how finding an aggravating factor would expand the possible sentence ranges, and the trial court overruled the defendant's objections to this argument and a related blackboard display. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the argument was inaccurate and misleading because the effect of an aggravating factor on sentencing is irrelevant to the jury's determination of whether the factor exists, making the trial court's ruling an error. However, the court concluded the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence supporting the aggravating factor, and therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals' result upholding the convictions and aggravated sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Darrell Wayne Maness, who was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder (on theories of premeditation and felony murder) of a police officer during a 2005 traffic stop, as well as multiple counts of attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, assault on law enforcement officers, and robbery with a firearm. Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury recommended death, and the trial court imposed that sentence. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial and sentencing proceedings were free from prejudicial error, including issues related to jury selection and the handling of the sentencing verdict, and that the death sentence was not disproportionate. The majority therefore affirmed the convictions and sentence. A dissent contended that the trial judge erred by failing to recognize and exercise discretion when the jury's sentencing recommendation appeared non-unanimous after polling.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved whether a police officer's interaction with defendant Lori Icard in a parked truck at a truck stop constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the encounter amounted to a seizure because a reasonable person would not have felt free to terminate it, based on the totality of circumstances including the officer parking behind the truck with lights activated, declaring he was investigating drugs and prostitution, calling for backup, requesting identification, and asking the defendant to exit with her purse. The court concluded that the illegal seizure tainted the subsequent search of the purse, so the defendant's apparent consent was invalid, and reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress the drug evidence found inside.

criminal lawcivil rights

Joseph Teague, proceeding pro se, filed multiple petitions with the North Carolina Supreme Court against the North Carolina Department of Transportation and its officials, including requests for writs of certiorari to review decisions of the Court of Appeals and a writ of mandamus to compel the State Personnel Commission to issue a final decision in a personnel matter. The Supreme Court considered these petitions in conference and dismissed all of them, including those filed in July 2008 and April 2009. The dismissals were ordered without further explanation in the court's order, and Justice Edmunds was recused from the matter.

procedurelabor & employment

This case involved Andre Levern Miller, who was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell and deliver after police executing a search warrant found crack cocaine in a bedroom where he was sitting on a bed. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, and the jury convicted him of simple possession and habitual felon status. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the verdict. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support constructive possession because the defendant was found within touching distance of the cocaine and his birth certificate and identification card were in the same room.

criminal law