Robert F. Orr

This case is a continuation of Leandro v. State, addressing whether the State of North Carolina failed to meet its constitutional duty to provide Hoke County students the opportunity for a sound basic education. The court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the State had not fulfilled this obligation for certain at-risk students, and it upheld (with modifications) the directive requiring the State to correct deficient educational methods and practices. However, the court reversed the trial court's order to expand pre-kindergarten programs statewide for at-risk students, finding that this remedy improperly infringed on the roles of the legislative and executive branches. It also affirmed the trial court's inclusion of federal funds when evaluating the State's compliance with constitutional standards.

civil rights

This case concerned whether a landlord could be held liable when a tenant's dogs attacked and injured a third party who had entered the rental property to prepare a demolition estimate. The plaintiff sued the tenant for strict liability and both the tenant and landlord for negligence; a jury found the landlord and tenant negligent and awarded damages, but a divided Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against the landlord on the ground that it was not an owner or keeper of the dogs. The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed whether the negligence claim could proceed on a premises-liability theory even though the landlord was not the dogs' keeper, noting that animals differ from fixed premises conditions and that lease provisions giving the landlord authority to order removal of dangerous pets could support a duty of care. The court distinguished the negligence claim from traditional strict-liability animal cases that require proof the defendant was the owner or keeper with scienter of viciousness.

torts & liabilityproperty

In State v. Jones, the defendant was indicted and convicted of two counts of first-degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation for shooting his wife and stepson in their home, after which he attempted suicide; the jury recommended and the trial court imposed death sentences for each murder. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court addressed multiple assignments of error related to jury selection, including the denial of voir dire on parole eligibility, the statutory method of selecting jurors under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1214(d), the randomness of jury panels, and other evidentiary and procedural rulings. The court overruled all claims, finding they were either barred by precedent, waived for failure to object at trial, or within the trial court's discretion, and conducted proportionality review to conclude that the death sentences were not disproportionate given the aggravating circumstances such as the course of conduct and murders in the home. The court ultimately held that the defendant received a fair trial and sentencing free from prejudicial error and affirmed the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns whether an attorney must disclose communications with his deceased client, Derril Willard, in the investigation of Eric Miller's death by arsenic poisoning. The court reviewed the trial court's in camera examination of the attorney's affidavit and determined that certain communications relating solely to a third party fell outside the attorney-client privilege and should be disclosed to the prosecution. The court affirmed the disclosure of non-privileged information from the affidavit while protecting the remainder as privileged, based on the principles established in the prior Miller I decision regarding exceptions to attorney-client privilege after a client's death.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Matthews, the defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, second-degree burglary, and related theft charges after evidence showed he entered the victim's home, tied and gagged her leading to asphyxiation, and fled with her property and vehicle. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder under premeditation and the felony murder rule, burglary, and other offenses, resulting in a death sentence. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that defense counsel's concession during closing arguments that the defendant was guilty of second-degree murder without his consent amounted to per se ineffective assistance of counsel under State v. Harbison, violating the Sixth Amendment. The court also identified improper prosecutorial closing arguments involving personal opinions and name-calling but granted a new trial primarily on the ineffective assistance ground after reviewing the record and remand findings. The decision reversed the convictions and ordered a retrial.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Mitchell, the defendant was arrested for driving while impaired after failing to stop at a police driver's license checkpoint on U.S. Highway 29/74 and then accelerating past the officers, nearly striking one. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the stop and arrest, ruling that the checkpoint was unconstitutional due to unbridled officer discretion. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the checkpoint valid under the Fourth Amendment. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals as modified, holding that the constitutionality of the checkpoint need not be decided because the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the defendant based on his failure to stop and evasive actions, which justified the pursuit and eventual stop one and a half miles later.

criminal lawcivil rights

In State v. Miller, defendant Clifford Ray Miller was convicted of first-degree murder (on grounds of both premeditation and deliberation and the felony murder rule), robbery with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy, kidnapping, and larceny after evidence showed he and a co-defendant robbed, kidnapped, and fatally stabbed an arcade manager while stealing bank deposits in 2000. The jury recommended and the trial court imposed a death sentence for the murder along with consecutive prison terms for the other offenses. On appeal limited to the sentencing phase, the North Carolina Supreme Court examined claims of improper prosecutorial comments on the defendant's silence, misstatements of evidence, and related issues but found no prejudicial error requiring intervention. The court further held the death penalty proportionate after comparing the case to precedents involving similar multiple aggravating circumstances, including the especially heinous nature of the crime and premeditation, and affirmed the judgment.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute between Steve Singleton, a property owner, and Haywood Electric Membership Corporation (HEMC), a rural electric cooperative, over HEMC's actions on Singleton's land after an ice storm downed a transmission line crossing the property. Singleton had reported the line and objected to vehicle access, but HEMC entered, installed new poles and heavier, lower-hanging aluminum lines, cleared a wide swath of vegetation including trees and an orchard, and made other alterations without an easement. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Singleton on his trespass claim, finding no express or prescriptive easement and that HEMC's conduct constituted trespass and continuing trespass; the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed. The majority reasoned that HEMC's membership agreement and service rules permitted only limited access for repair or maintenance, which the extensive upgrades exceeded, and rejected arguments based on estoppel or implied rights. A dissent argued that factual issues existed regarding whether the work fell within permitted repair and maintenance activities.

propertytorts & liability

In State v. Jones, the defendant was convicted of two first-degree murders under the felony murder rule, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and breaking or entering after a home invasion during which two people were shot and killed. The trial court imposed a death sentence for one murder and life imprisonment for the other. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court found no error in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. However, the court held that the trial judge's jury instruction on the pecuniary gain aggravating circumstance was plain error because it automatically tied a finding of robbery to that aggravating factor without permitting the jury to consider whether the killing was actually committed for pecuniary gain, which likely influenced the death recommendation. The court therefore vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new capital sentencing proceeding.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit by the estate of Effie Hendricks against Nash County, alleging negligence by county-employed EMTs in failing to intubate her or provide oxygen after she collapsed, leading to her death from anoxic encephalopathy. The trial court granted summary judgment to the county on sovereign immunity grounds, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the county's insurance policy did not waive immunity. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the policy's coverage provisions for liability arising from EMT services applied to the county as the participant, thereby waiving sovereign immunity and allowing the negligence claims to proceed.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose from an anonymous report to Cleveland County DSS alleging that a two-year-old child was seen naked and unsupervised in a driveway, prompting an investigator to visit the Stumbo home; the parents refused to allow private interviews with their children, leading DSS to petition under N.C.G.S. § 7B-303 for a court order prohibiting interference with the investigation. The district court granted the order after finding the parents had obstructed the inquiry without lawful excuse, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a divided decision. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that the record contained insufficient particularized evidence—such as details on duration, surroundings, or prior incidents—to support the order, that the trial court failed to scrutinize the anonymous tip or consider the parents' objections as required by the statute's burden-of-proof provision, and that the case could be resolved on statutory rather than constitutional grounds. The Court emphasized that DSS must present adequate justification before a court may authorize entry into a private home or private interviews over parental objection.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved defendant Christina Shea Walters, who was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder (on theories of premeditation and deliberation and felony murder) plus multiple related charges of kidnapping, robbery, conspiracy, and assault arising from a gang's August 1998 spree in which three victims were abducted at gunpoint, robbed, forced into car trunks, and either shot or executed. The jury recommended and the trial court imposed death sentences for the two murders, along with consecutive prison terms for the other nine felony convictions. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the death penalty was not disproportionate because the crimes featured four aggravating circumstances, premeditated killings, and facts at least as egregious as those in upheld cases such as State v. Call.

criminal law

This case concerns disciplinary proceedings by the North Carolina State Bar against attorney Robert M. Talford for failures in trust account management, including not maintaining a ledger, not performing quarterly reconciliations, and related bookkeeping discrepancies with client funds. The Disciplinary Hearing Commission found gross negligence, determined that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating ones, and ordered disbarment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the disbarment sanction. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellate courts have authority under N.C.G.S. § 84-28(h) to review sanctions and that the whole-record test showed insufficient evidence or findings to support disbarment rather than a lesser penalty.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Williams, the defendant was charged with and convicted of two first-degree murders, multiple first-degree rapes, a first-degree sexual offense, and several assaults with a deadly weapon arising from attacks on multiple victims. The jury recommended death sentences for the murders after finding aggravating circumstances including prior violent felony convictions, commission during attempted rape, and course of conduct involving other violent crimes, and the trial court imposed those sentences along with lengthy prison terms for the remaining convictions. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the trial record and assignments of error, concluding that the capital convictions and death sentences were free from prejudicial error and that the sentences were neither excessive nor disproportionate when compared to similar cases. The court also found no reversible error in the noncapital convictions but remanded those cases for resentencing because the defendant had been incorrectly classified at prior record level V.

criminal law

This case involved the New Hanover County Department of Social Services petitioning to terminate Dawn A. Cole's parental rights to her daughter Kristina, who had tested positive for cocaine at birth in 1997 and was later placed in foster care and then with relatives after Cole's continued substance issues. The trial court granted the termination based on findings that Cole had willfully left the child in out-of-home placement for over 12 months without making reasonable progress in addressing the conditions leading to removal, primarily her drug use. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed that reversal, holding that the evidence did not meet the clear, cogent, and convincing standard required under the applicable statute (N.C.G.S. § 7A-289.32(3)) because much of the evidence fell outside the relevant 12-month period and Cole had shown progress through treatment and employment. The court vacated the termination order, emphasizing that the petitioner bears the burden of proof on all statutory elements.

family law

The case concerned a land-use dispute in which Good Neighbors, residents owning property around a 50-acre parcel in Davidson County zoned for rural agricultural use, challenged the Town of Denton's satellite annexation of the non-contiguous tract and its subsequent rezoning to light and heavy industrial use to accommodate a chemical-storage facility. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding the actions constituted illegal spot zoning and contract zoning, but the Court of Appeals reversed and upheld the annexation and zoning. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's judgment, reasoning that the spot zoning lacked a reasonable basis because it created an isolated industrial island surrounded by county rural property, showed no compatibility with a comprehensive plan or adjacent uses, provided benefits mainly to the landowner and town, and posed potential detriments to neighboring owners without the required clear showing of reasonableness.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Bryant Renard Fulp, who was convicted of felony possession of stolen goods and as a habitual felon after the trial court denied his motion to suppress a 1993 prior conviction used to enhance his sentence under the habitual felon statute. Fulp argued the prior conviction was obtained in violation of his right to counsel, but the trial court found he had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived that right. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court's findings were adequately supported by evidence such as Fulp's signed waiver form, his testimony, and his acknowledgments in the 1993 plea transcript, and that he failed to meet his burden under N.C.G.S. § 15A-980(c) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had not waived counsel.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Jones, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder after beating and robbing his uncle to obtain money for crack cocaine; a jury convicted him on theories of premeditation and deliberation, felony murder, and lying in wait, and recommended a death sentence. The North Carolina Supreme Court found no reversible error in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, including jury selection and evidentiary matters. However, it held that the prosecutor's closing argument during the capital sentencing proceeding improperly compared the crime to the Columbine shootings and Oklahoma City bombing, appealing to passion and prejudice rather than relying on evidence or fair inferences, which violated established limits on closing arguments. As a result, the court vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the estate and parents of Kenneth Fennell, an African-American man shot and killed by a North Carolina State Trooper during a 1993 traffic stop on Interstate 85, after which state authorities deemed the shooting justified. Plaintiffs initially filed federal claims for constitutional violations, conspiracy, and wrongful death, which were dismissed on summary judgment; they then refiled state claims in 1998, including under the North Carolina Constitution. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and reinstated the trial court's dismissal of all claims against Trooper Stephenson and the State Highway Patrol. The core reasoning was that the state claims were time-barred by statutes of limitations, the wrongful death claim was precluded by collateral estoppel from the federal ruling, sovereign immunity barred claims against the Highway Patrol, and neither the relation-back doctrine nor federal tolling provisions applied to add new parties after the limitations periods had expired.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In State v. May, the defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder for stabbing Valeri Sue Riddle and her four-year-old son, Kelley Mark Laird, Jr., and was sentenced to death after the jury found aggravating circumstances including that the crimes were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by excluding evidence suggesting that another person, Darrell Godfrey, had committed the murders and that the death sentences were disproportionate. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the excluded evidence was properly ruled irrelevant because it failed to point directly to Godfrey's guilt or to be inconsistent with the defendant's guilt, as required under state precedent, and that the defendant's own confession, DNA evidence, fingerprints, and other physical proof amply supported the convictions. The Court further concluded after proportionality review that the death sentences were not disproportionate given the premeditated nature of the killings, the presence of multiple aggravating factors, the defendant's lack of remorse, and the fact that one victim was a young child. The Court therefore affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no prejudicial error in the trial or sentencing proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure