This case involves a petition by the State of North Carolina for discretionary review of a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision in the criminal matter of State v. Brian W. Rhodes, Jr. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the petition, filed May 8, 2012, under G.S. 7A-31. On June 13, 2012, the court granted the petition in conference, agreeing to hear the case on its merits and directing the parties to submit briefs under Appellate Rule 15(g)(2). Justice Jackson recused from participation. No further substantive rulings or factual details appear in the order.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Barnhill, defendant Anthony Junior Barnhill sought review by the North Carolina Supreme Court of a lower court decision in his criminal case through a petition for discretionary review. The court denied the petition in a brief order issued after conference on June 13, 2012. No substantive legal analysis or reasoning was provided in the order. Justice Jackson recused himself from participation in the decision.

criminal law

In this case, defendant Lindo Nickerson filed a motion for notice of appeal in a criminal matter pending before the North Carolina Supreme Court. The court dismissed the motion by order entered in conference on June 13, 2012. The brief order provides no additional explanation or analysis for the dismissal. Justice Jackson recused himself from participation. The underlying facts or lower-court rulings in the criminal case are not addressed in this opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Lindo Nickerson, who sought to appeal a lower court ruling in a criminal case brought by the State of North Carolina. Nickerson filed a motion for notice of appeal with the North Carolina Supreme Court. The court dismissed the motion by order issued after a conference on June 13, 2012, with no additional explanation or substantive review provided in the ruling. Justice Jackson recused from participation.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Barnes, defendant Donald Barnes petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review an order issued by the Superior Court of Wake County in his criminal case. On April 12, 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition by an order entered in conference. The brief order provided no further explanation for the denial of review, and Justice Jackson recused from the matter. This action left the lower court’s order undisturbed.

criminal lawprocedure

In this criminal case, defendant Marshall Blackmon sought discretionary review by the North Carolina Supreme Court after a lower court ruling. The court denied the petition in a brief conference order dated April 12, 2012, without stating reasons or issuing a full opinion. Justice Jackson took no part in the decision due to recusal. The underlying facts and legal issues from prior proceedings are not addressed in this order.

criminal law

In the case In re William Van Trusell, defendant William Van Trusell filed two separate petitions for writs of mandamus with the Supreme Court of North Carolina, seeking relief directed to the Superior Court in Lee County. The court reviewed the petitions—one submitted March 20, 2012, and the second on April 3, 2012—and, acting in conference on April 12, 2012, entered orders dismissing both. Justice Jackson recused himself from consideration. The orders provided no further explanation beyond certifying the dismissals to the lower court.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns Anthony Junior Barnhill's petition asking the North Carolina Supreme Court to exercise its discretion to review a lower-court ruling in his criminal case. The court dismissed the petition for discretionary review. The dismissal was entered by order of the full court following its conference on April 12, 2012, with Justice Jackson recused from participation. No further explanation or substantive analysis of the underlying issues was provided in the order.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether North Carolina District Court Judge John William Totten, II should be censured for judicial misconduct after he presided over a 2010 DWI case in Mecklenburg County. Following the defendant’s guilty plea and sentencing, the judge initiated an ex parte discussion at the bench with defense counsel (but not the prosecutor) about preparing and signing an order to suppress the defendant’s BAC results of 0.17, which would prevent the required ignition interlock device; he later signed the order over the State’s noted objection without allowing substantive argument. The Judicial Standards Commission investigated, the parties entered detailed stipulations establishing the facts by clear and convincing evidence, and the Commission recommended censure for violating Canons 1, 2A, 3A(1), and 3A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct as well as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b). The North Carolina Supreme Court adopted the Commission’s findings and conclusions and ordered that Judge Totten be censured.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Jones, a criminal prosecution involving alleged cocaine possession or distribution, the State sought to add to the appellate record a crime lab report confirming the substance as cocaine and a statutory notice under N.C.G.S. § 90-95 that had been given to trial counsel before trial, indicating intent to introduce the report. These documents had not been included or known to appellate counsel during proceedings before the Court of Appeals. The North Carolina Supreme Court granted the State's motion to amend the record and, on its own initiative, vacated the Court of Appeals' December 2010 decision while remanding the case for reconsideration in light of the supplemented record. The order was issued following a conference of the Court on March 8, 2012.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a judicial disciplinary proceeding against North Carolina District Court Judge Denise S. Hartsfield, who was investigated by the Judicial Standards Commission for improperly adding at least 82 traffic and Driving While License Revoked (DWLR) cases to her docket, dismissing charges without hearings or prosecutorial consent, and entering favorable judgments after ex parte communications. The Supreme Court of North Carolina ordered her suspended without compensation for 75 days. The court based this on stipulated facts showing a deliberate pattern of conduct that violated statutes, normal procedures, and judicial canons, which was especially serious because it continued after a 2006 private caution for similar actions and involved a large volume of cases. Mitigating factors included her self-reporting, full cooperation with the investigation, and agreement that discipline was warranted, leading the court to impose suspension rather than removal.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hunt, the defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual offense and crime against nature after engaging in sexual acts with a 17-year-old victim who had a mental disability that allegedly rendered her unable to consent. The central issue on appeal was whether the State must always present expert testimony under Rule 702 to prove that a victim lacked the mental capacity to consent due to a disability, or whether lay testimony could suffice. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that expert testimony is not required in every case and that the State had presented sufficient evidence—including the victim’s own testimony and observations from lay witnesses about her daily functioning—to withstand the defendant’s motions to dismiss. The Court reasoned that determining mental capacity for consent is ultimately a judicial question that can be resolved by non-expert evidence from those familiar with the victim, though it noted expert testimony may still be needed in some circumstances. The case was remanded for consideration of the defendant’s remaining issues.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves defendant Anthony Townsend, who filed a motion in the North Carolina Supreme Court requesting appointment of counsel in connection with his criminal matter. On March 8, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing the motion as moot following a conference of the justices. No further explanation or substantive analysis of the underlying issues appears in the order. Justice Jackson recused himself from participation in the decision.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Kirk, defendant Vernon Russell Kirk filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the North Carolina Supreme Court seeking relief related to proceedings in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition by order entered in conference. No reasoning or further analysis was provided in the order, which certified the dismissal to the lower court, and Justice Jackson recused from participation.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Barnhill, defendant Anthony Junior Barnhill sought review by the North Carolina Supreme Court after a lower court ruling in his criminal case. He filed a petition for discretionary review on January 17, 2012. On March 8, 2012, the court dismissed the petition by order issued in conference, thereby declining to hear the case. Justice Jackson was recused and did not participate. The order provides no further explanation of the underlying facts or legal issues.

criminal law

In State v. Hunter, defendant Marcus Devan Hunter filed a notice of appeal from a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision to the state Supreme Court, invoking G.S. 7A-30 on the basis of an alleged substantial constitutional question. On March 8, 2012, the Supreme Court issued an order in conference dismissing the appeal ex mero motu. Justice Jackson recused from participation. The dismissal left the Court of Appeals ruling in place without further review by the state's highest court.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Sprouse, defendant William Thomas Sprouse petitioned the Supreme Court of North Carolina for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 of a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision in his criminal case. On March 8, 2012, the Supreme Court denied the petition by order entered in conference, declining to hear the matter. Justice Jackson recused himself from consideration. The denial leaves the Court of Appeals ruling undisturbed as the final disposition.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Townsend, defendant Anthony Townsend sought further review of a North Carolina Court of Appeals order by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the petition, which was filed on February 1, 2012, and entered an order dismissing it following a conference on March 8, 2012. Justice Jackson was recused from the matter. No substantive reasoning or analysis of the underlying case was provided in the court's order.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Williamson, the North Carolina Supreme Court addressed a procedural issue arising from an appeal of a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s Motion for Appropriate Relief in a criminal case. The Court of Appeals had issued a 2010 decision, accompanied by a dissent, that focused on the absence of a written order from the trial court. Upon review, the Supreme Court discovered that a written order had in fact been entered in June 2009, though it was unknown to appellate counsel at the time. On its own motion, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case for that court to decide whether to amend the record to include the order, allow new briefing or arguments, reach the merits of the defendant’s claims, or take other appropriate steps.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Anthony Townsend petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review an order issued by the Superior Court in Cumberland County. The Supreme Court denied the petition in a brief order entered on December 8, 2011, following consideration in conference. No further explanation or substantive reasoning was provided for the denial, and Justice Jackson recused from participation.

criminal lawprocedure