I Beverly Lake sr

The case Elmwood v. Elmwood involved enforcement of a prior order requiring a father to make monthly child support payments, including adjudication of willful contempt for non-payment and a garnishment order against his military retirement benefits to satisfy arrearages. The court affirmed the contempt finding and sentence, as they were supported by evidence of the defendant's ability to pay from private employment and retirement income. It modified the garnishment, holding that 42 U.S.C. § 659 permits state garnishment proceedings against federal retirement pay as remuneration for employment but not against disability payments, and that North Carolina law under G.S. 110-136 limits such garnishment to 20% for child support; certain disbursement orders were vacated and the matter remanded for adjusted distributions. The core reasoning distinguished types of federal payments under federal law while applying state procedural limits on attachment and garnishment.

family lawfederal power

In State v. House, the defendant appealed his criminal convictions, arguing among other issues that the bill of indictment was invalid because it lacked an explicit attestation by the grand jury foreman that twelve or more jurors had concurred in finding a true bill. The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected this and the defendant's other claims, holding that the foreman's signature beneath the statement that the bill was a true bill, combined with the statutory requirement of at least twelve concurrences under G.S. 15A-623 and G.S. 15A-644, sufficiently attested to the necessary concurrence. The court further determined that related statutory provisions on marking witnesses were directory rather than mandatory, that the defendant's choice to represent himself was properly allowed after inquiry, and that no error occurred in denying appointment of trial counsel for the appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in any of the assignments of error.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. McQueen, the defendant appealed his criminal convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictments due to the State's alleged failure to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (G.S. 15A-761 et seq.), by allowing certain cross-examination questions about his past actions, and by denying his motion to reopen the case for additional evidence after jury deliberations began. The court held that there was no reversible error in any of these rulings. It reasoned that the defendant had not followed the Act's required procedures by properly notifying the warden and sending the specified certificate and request via registered or certified mail, that the cross-examination questions were permissible and asked in good faith, and that the decision to reopen evidence was within the trial court's discretion with no abuse shown.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Grant v. Emmco Insurance centered on whether an automobile insurance policy covered a leased tractor involved in an accident, where the policy-designated Ford tractor was under repair and inoperable. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed. The court held that the policy's provisions extending coverage to 'newly acquired' vehicles that 'replace' a described vehicle were ambiguous as to the meaning of 'replace' and the timing of notice, requiring construction in favor of the insured. It reasoned that the leased tractor qualified as a replacement during the 30-day notice grace period because the original vehicle was not operable, and the complaint sufficiently alleged facts supporting coverage under notice pleading standards.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In State v. Pagano, the defendant appealed his criminal conviction, arguing errors in the trial court's jury instructions on the mother's testimony regarding his sanity, the admission of his statement to police without a proper finding on waiver of counsel, and the constitutionality of North Carolina's M'Naghten Rule for the insanity defense, which he claimed violated due process and should be replaced by the Model Penal Code test. The court overruled all assignments of error and found no basis for a new trial. It held that objections to the jury charge's summary of evidence must be raised before the jury retires or they are waived, that the trial court's findings on the voluntary waiver were supported by uncontradicted evidence and conclusive, and that the statement was not incriminating. The court reaffirmed its adherence to the M'Naghten Rule per longstanding precedent, noting that the burden of proof on insanity properly rests on the defendant and that the legal test focuses on the degree of mental defect recognized by state policy rather than the mere presence of illness.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Fulcher, the defendant appealed his convictions for crimes against nature and kidnapping, challenging the trial court's admission of booking photographs and a photographic lineup used by the victims to identify him, as well as certain jury instructions and the application of the kidnapping statute. The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed only the preserved assignments of error and determined that the photographs were properly admitted either to illustrate witness testimony or as substantive evidence of the pre-arrest identification process, with no due process violations or improper expressions of opinion by the trial judge. The court also upheld the kidnapping convictions under the literal terms of G.S. 14-39, noting that any policy concerns about overlapping offenses or minor asportations were matters for the legislature rather than judicial reinterpretation. It concluded there was no error in the proceedings below and affirmed the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure