In State v. Hoover, defendant Anthony Leon Hoover filed a motion in the North Carolina Supreme Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. The court denied the motion by order entered after a conference on July 9, 2012. No further explanation or reasoning was given for the denial, and Justice Hudson took no part in the decision.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Otto, the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed whether a traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion after Trooper A.B. Smith stopped Megan Sue Otto's vehicle for weaving constantly within its lane for three-quarters of a mile near an equestrian center hosting an event where alcohol might be served; Otto was later charged with driving while impaired and moved to suppress the resulting evidence. The trial court denied the motion to suppress based in part on a finding that the trooper "knew" the center served alcohol, but the Court of Appeals reversed in a divided opinion. The Supreme Court agreed that the trial court's finding was unsupported because the trooper had only heard that alcohol was served there, yet it reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the denial of suppression. The Court held that the trooper's observation of the vehicle's constant and continuous weaving within its own lane, without leaving the lane, provided the minimal objective justification needed for reasonable suspicion of impaired driving under the Fourth Amendment, independent of any information about alcohol.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Beckelheimer, the defendant faced charges of indecent liberties with a child and first-degree sexual offense for allegedly performing oral sex on his eleven-year-old male cousin while pretending to be asleep during a video game session in his bedroom. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had held the evidence inadmissible and ordered a new trial, and instead upheld the trial court's admission of testimony from the victim's half-brother describing similar prior acts by the defendant. The Court reasoned that the prior acts met Rule 404(b) requirements due to their sufficient similarity in location, method of approach, progression of conduct, and victim age range, even though they occurred ten to twelve years earlier; it further concluded that any remoteness went to evidentiary weight rather than admissibility, and that the trial court had not abused its discretion under Rule 403 after conducting a voir dire hearing and issuing a limiting instruction.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hoover, the North Carolina Supreme Court addressed a motion for writ relief filed by defendant Anthony Leon Hoover in a criminal case. The defendant sought the writ on May 14, 2012. On June 13, 2012, the court dismissed the motion by order entered in conference. Justice Hudson was recused from the proceeding. The excerpt provides no further details on the underlying conviction or the specific grounds for the writ request.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a motion filed by defendant Anthony Leon Hoover in the North Carolina Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus related to a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. The underlying matter stems from State v. Hoover, a criminal case in which Hoover had previously been convicted. On June 13, 2012, the court dismissed the motion in a conference order without further explanation or hearing. Justice Hudson recused herself from participation. The order provides no additional factual background or legal analysis beyond the dismissal itself.

criminal lawprocedure

In Variety Wholesalers, Inc. v. Salem Logistics Traffic Services, LLC, a retailer sued its former logistics provider for breach of contract after Salem failed to pay Variety’s carriers with funds Variety had forwarded under their freight agreement, then added Salem’s secured lender Ark Royal Capital as a defendant upon discovering that Variety’s payments had been deposited into a lockbox account Ark controlled under an asset-based loan. The trial court granted summary judgment to Variety on its conversion claim against Ark while denying relief on the constructive-trust claim; the Court of Appeals reversed and entered judgment for Ark on both claims. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the funds were sufficiently identifiable for a conversion action and whether Ark had the knowledge or notice required to support either conversion or a constructive trust. The Court reasoned that evidence of Ark’s weekly account reviews, board representation, and the commingling of client payments raised triable questions about Ark’s awareness that the funds might not belong to Salem, and that UCC Article 4A did not preempt these state-law claims. The case was therefore remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In Willis v. Willis, the plaintiff sought reformation of a 2005 deed in which Janice Willis conveyed her home to her son Eddie (reserving a life estate for herself), claiming the deed failed to reflect her true intent due to her own unilateral mistake after Eddie's 2007 death caused the property to pass to his children rather than being shared with his brother. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The North Carolina Supreme Court modified and affirmed, holding that reformation of a deed is available only in cases of mutual mistake, unilateral mistake induced by fraud, or a draftsman's error, as established in Crawford v. Willoughby and its progeny. The court rejected the plaintiff's reliance on contrary dictum from Nelson v. Harris, ruling that a grantor's unilateral mistake alone, without fraud, provides no basis for reformation as a matter of law.

property

This case involved a tax dispute between Marathon Holdings, LLC and Wake County that had been decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Marathon Holdings petitioned the Supreme Court of North Carolina for discretionary review of that decision under G.S. 7A-31. The Supreme Court denied the petition in a brief conference order issued on March 8, 2012, without further explanation or substantive analysis of the underlying issues. Justice Hudson took no part in the decision.

taxesprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim brought by employee Tamida Wynn against her employer, United Health Services/Two Rivers Health-Trent Campus, and its insurance carrier. After an adverse ruling by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the defendant filed petitions with the state Supreme Court seeking a writ of supersedeas to stay enforcement of that judgment and discretionary review of the decision under G.S. 7A-31. In a conference order dated January 26, 2012, the Supreme Court denied both petitions without elaboration, with Justice Hudson recused, thereby declining to hear the appeal on the merits.

labor & employment

This case concerns a motion filed by defendant Michael Lamont Speller in a criminal matter pending before the North Carolina Supreme Court. Speller requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis, which would allow him to pursue his case without paying standard court costs due to financial hardship. On December 8, 2011, the court granted the motion by order issued in conference. Justice Hudson took no part in the decision. No further details on the underlying charges or appeal are provided in the order.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Speller, defendant Michael Lamont Speller filed a petition with the North Carolina Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari to review an order issued by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in his criminal case. The Supreme Court considered the petition but entered an order dismissing it without further review. The dismissal was issued by the Court in conference on December 8, 2011, with Justice Hudson recused. No additional explanation or analysis of the underlying issues was provided in the order. This ended Speller's attempt to obtain higher-court review of the Court of Appeals decision.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hill, the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed a conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon arising from a 2000 ATM incident in which an assailant used a sharp object to take $100 from victim Kevin Cole, with the defendant allegedly acting as the getaway driver. The sole issue was whether the State presented sufficient evidence on the elements of use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon and endangerment of the victim’s life. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the conviction and the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. It applied the established sufficiency standard, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and concluded that testimony about the assailant wielding a knife and the victim’s resulting wrist laceration constituted substantial evidence of the required elements.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Moore, the defendant was convicted of obtaining property by false pretense after renting out a house he did not own, and the trial court ordered him to pay $39,332.49 in restitution as a condition of probation. The Court of Appeals vacated the restitution award, finding it unsupported by the evidence, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed that portion of the decision. The Court held that while testimony from the victim's estimate of “thirty-something thousand dollars” in repairs plus evidence of $1,500 in rent collected provided some support for an award, it was not specific enough to justify the exact amount ordered. Accordingly, the case was remanded for a new hearing to calculate the proper restitution amount based on the evidence of damages proximately caused by the defendant's conduct.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

In McKoy v. Beasley, plaintiff Debra McKoy, as administratrix of her late husband's estate, appealed a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision in a lawsuit against Dr. Charles R. Beasley and the Lumberton Medical Clinic. The North Carolina Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's notice of appeal filed under G.S. 7A-30 on the ground of a substantial constitutional question and denied her separate petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31. Both orders were entered by the Court in conference on October 6, 2011, with Justice Hudson recused.

proceduretorts & liability

This case before the Supreme Court of North Carolina involved defendants United Health Services seeking relief in an appeal or petition arising from a dispute with plaintiff Tamida Wynn. On August 25, 2011, the defendants filed a motion for a temporary stay, which the court considered in conference. The court granted the motion on September 2, 2011, ordering the stay to take effect immediately. Justice Hudson recused herself from participation in the order.

procedure

This case involves defendant O'Marr S. Reid, who filed a motion for notice of appeal in a criminal proceeding before the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The court considered the motion but dismissed it by order issued in conference on August 25, 2011. Justice Hudson recused herself from the matter. The order provides no additional details about the underlying charges or the basis for dismissal.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Reid, defendant O'Marr S. Reid filed a motion for permission to appeal as an indigent, seeking to proceed without the usual costs associated with an appeal in his criminal case. The Supreme Court of North Carolina granted this motion by order entered after a conference on August 25, 2011, allowing the petition to appeal as indigent. The decision was procedural in nature with Justice Hudson recusing from participation, and no detailed reasoning was articulated beyond the allowance of the motion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves defendant Artis Tamar Perkins's petition to the North Carolina Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review an order issued by the Superior Court in Wake County. The Supreme Court considered the petition and entered an order dismissing it in conference. No specific grounds for dismissal or further analysis were provided in the order. Justice Hudson was recused from participation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a criminal proceeding before the Supreme Court of North Carolina involving defendant Artis Tamar Perkins. The defendant filed a motion to appoint counsel in connection with the appeal. The court entered an order dismissing the motion as moot after consideration in conference. Justice Hudson recused from participation in the decision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Nicholas Nathaniel Cauley, who filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus and a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision in a criminal matter. The North Carolina Supreme Court considered these filings on March 24, 2011. The court denied the habeas corpus application by conference order and dismissed the certiorari petition by separate conference order. Justice Hudson recused from participation in the matter.

criminal lawprocedure