Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Party: Democratic →BA, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillJD, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillBA, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Sarah E. Parker
Judge, Supreme Court of North Carolina · Born 1942
In State v. Moore, the defendant was convicted of misdemeanor sexual battery against a 16-year-old victim after a jury trial in superior court, based on evidence that he entered her bedroom, straddled her on the bed, and touched her body over her clothes. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that admission of a police officer’s testimony—stating that the defendant, after arrest and Miranda warnings, refused to speak about the case—was not plain error warranting a new trial. The court reasoned that although the testimony improperly referenced the defendant’s post-Miranda exercise of his right to remain silent, the prosecutor did not emphasize or elicit it, did not cross-examine the defendant about his silence, and the overall evidence of guilt was substantial and corroborated by multiple witnesses; the defendant’s failure to object triggered plain-error review, which he did not satisfy. The court also held that related testimony about the defendant’s pre-arrest conversation with police did not imply any refusal to speak and thus was not error.
In State v. Williams, the defendant was a passenger in an SUV stopped for a window-tint violation on Interstate 77; after the officer questioned the driver and passenger separately and noted conflicting accounts about their relationship, travel route, and vehicle ownership, he extended the stop for a canine sniff that led to the discovery of 65 pounds of marijuana. The defendant was charged with trafficking, moved to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, and after the trial court denied the motion, she pleaded guilty while preserving her right to appeal. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the denial of suppression. The Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the inconsistencies and other indicators gave the officer reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop beyond the time needed to address the tint violation, justifying the canine search.
This case concerns a dispute over a district court administrative order in North Carolina, pitting District Attorney Jonathan M. David against District Court Judge Jerry A. Jolly. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed a motion to dismiss filed by the appellee (Judge Jolly) on August 29, 2011. On January 26, 2012, the court denied the motion in a conference order, allowing the underlying matter to proceed. Chief Justice Parker and Justices Martin and Timmons-Goodson recused themselves from consideration. No substantive reasoning or further details appear in the order.
In State v. Nabors, the defendant was convicted of possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine and sale of cocaine after an undercover purchase arranged by a police informant at a gas station. The Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed that decision and upheld the convictions. The core issue was whether the State presented sufficient evidence that the substance was cocaine, given challenges to the lay testimony of the informant and an officer. The Court held that the defendant's own witness, who testified that he (not the defendant) sold the drugs and described them as cocaine while recanting a prior statement, supplied independent evidence of the substance's identity sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss. The Court also found no merit in an unaddressed claim regarding the trial judge's questioning of a witness.
In Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered a motion filed by the defendants to strike materials in the case. On November 9, 2011, the court denied the motion by order entered in conference. The brief order provides no further explanation of the court's reasoning. Chief Justice Parker and Justices Timmons-Goodson and Hudson were recused.
This case concerns a petition by defendants Roy A. Cooper III, his campaign committee, and associated individuals seeking discretionary review by the North Carolina Supreme Court of a North Carolina Court of Appeals ruling in a lawsuit filed by the law firm Boyce & Isley, PLLC and its attorneys. The underlying litigation involved claims arising from statements made during Cooper's political activities. On November 9, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the petition for discretionary review in a conference order, leaving the Court of Appeals decision intact. No reasons for the denial were stated in the order. Chief Justice Parker and Justices Timmons-Goodson and Hudson recused themselves from consideration of the petition.
