Cheri Beasley

In State v. Mills, defendant Kenneth Wayne Mills appealed his jury convictions for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and robbery with a dangerous weapon arising from an attack on victim William Baker outside a residence in 2009. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motions to dismiss both charges, holding that the State presented substantial evidence including testimony about the victim's injuries, a bent and bloody lawn chair found near blood at the scene, and the defendant's statements, which supported an inference that the chair was used as a dangerous weapon. The court also ruled that lay testimony from officers identifying blood on the chair was admissible and that the victim's testimony about stolen cash and items sufficiently supported the $730 restitution order.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Chad Braswell's appeal from convictions for driving while impaired under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.1 and leaving the scene of an accident under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-166(c). The Court of Appeals vacated the leaving-the-scene conviction because the record showed no indictment on that charge after its dismissal pursuant to a district-court plea agreement, even though the defendant was entitled to de novo review in superior court and the State could recharge. It affirmed the driving-while-impaired conviction, finding sufficient evidence from the blood-test results showing controlled substances and from failed field-sobriety tests, and holding that any jury-instruction issue did not amount to plain error.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved three plaintiffs suing multiple defendants, including cemetery operators like Stonemor and SCI, over alleged failures to maintain grave sites at York Memorial Cemetery, resulting in misplaced or unlocatable headstones and burial plots for their deceased relatives; the claims included negligence, breach of contract, fraud, fraud upon the public, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of all claims against all defendants under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). The court held there was no personal jurisdiction over SCI as a non-resident parent company because the long-arm statute did not apply based on its ownership of a subsidiary and plaintiffs failed to meet their burden. It further reasoned that the fraud claims lacked the required particularity in pleading misrepresentations, the unfair trade practices claims amounted to mere breach of contract without aggravating circumstances, and other claims were insufficiently stated.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Inmates in the North Carolina Department of Correction sued state agencies and officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that their sentences under the Structured Sentencing Act should be calculated using thirty-day months rather than calendar months, which would reduce the length of sentences exceeding twelve months. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 12-3(3) controls by defining "month" as a calendar month unless otherwise expressed, while § 12-3(12) creates a narrow term of art limited to the phrase "imprisonment for one month" and does not redefine "month" for sentencing purposes. The opinion emphasized that execution of sentences is an administrative function governed by the plain language of the statutes.

criminal lawprocedure

Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including Hunter Construction, for damages from land-disturbing activities on adjacent property, asserting claims including negligence, nuisance, trespass, and violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA). The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on the SPCA claims but allowed the others to proceed to trial, where the jury awarded plaintiffs $675,000 in damages. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged only the dismissal of the SPCA claims against Hunter. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the SPCA requires actual or potential sedimentation into bodies of water and does not apply to land-disturbing activities that cause no such deposition, so plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim under the statute. A dissent argued that the SPCA covers risks of sedimentation without requiring actual deposition into water.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

This case involved a bank seeking to reform a 2009 deed of trust, which secured a loan on only one tract of a 1.3-acre property, to cover the entire parcel after the original owners transferred the land to satisfy a judgment held by the defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the bank's claims for deed reformation, an equitable lien, and foreclosure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of reformation, holding that the defendants, as subsequent transferees without notice of any mistake in the deed's scope, would be prejudiced by the change and thus reformation was unavailable; it reversed and remanded in part on the remaining claims. The decision rested on principles that reformation cannot impair the rights of bona fide purchasers for value and that summary judgment was appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding prejudice.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a contract dispute between Vaseleniuck Engine Development, LLC and Sabertooth Motorcycles, LLC over the supply and payment for fifty custom motorcycle engines, with Defendant having paid most but not all of the amount due and Plaintiff retaining possession of thirty-five engines while asserting a possessory lien under North Carolina law. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of the lien statute, conversion, trespass to chattels, and other claims after Plaintiff sold three engines at auction without completing the required judicial process. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Defendant on the lien statute violation and on the conversion and trespass claims. The appellate court reversed both orders, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Plaintiff substantially complied with the lien procedures and whether it held a valid possessory lien on the engines, making summary judgment inappropriate. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

In Robinson v. Smith, plaintiffs sued a sheriff's deputy, the sheriff, Durham County, and related parties for negligence after the deputy allegedly collided with their car while on duty and injured one plaintiff. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, contending the amendment improperly added parties without leave of court and that governmental immunity barred the claims. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the amendment was permitted under Rule 15 before any responsive pleading was served and that the pleadings alone sufficiently alleged waiver of immunity via county insurance to survive dismissal.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Samuel James Cooper's convictions for armed robbery of a bank and five counts of first-degree murder, based on evidence linking his weapon to the crimes and his confession after police arrested his father. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the confession, arguing it was coerced by threats involving his father and obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent and to counsel. The court affirmed the trial court's findings that the confession was voluntary with no improper inducements or coercion, that Defendant did not unambiguously invoke his rights to silence or counsel, and that he had re-initiated contact with police, rendering the statements admissible. The court also held that any error in the jury instructions regarding deliberation was harmless because the murder convictions rested on independent grounds of felony murder. The appellate court found no error and upheld the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Inland Harbor Homeowners Association and St. Josephs Marina, LLC and related parties over ownership of a bulkhead separating their adjacent waterfront properties in Carolina Beach, North Carolina, along with related claims of nuisance, trespass, and a request to reform a 2004 deed exchanging parcels. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ownership, riparian rights, and reformation issues. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the deeds and chain of title showed the plaintiff did not own the bulkhead, that riparian rights required such ownership, and that there was insufficient evidence of mutual mistake to support reforming the deed. The decision rested on standard principles of deed construction and summary judgment review, finding no genuine issues of material fact.

propertyprocedureenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a father's repeated motions to reduce his child support obligations under a consent order, which had been set at $830 per month plus arrears following his 2007 separation. The trial court denied the motions, finding no substantial change in circumstances warranting modification. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial, holding that although the three-year guidelines created a rebuttable presumption of changed circumstances based on a 15% income difference, this presumption was overcome by evidence that the father had voluntarily left his job to pursue other careers without regard for his children's welfare, thereby intentionally depressing his income. The court further rejected arguments that the trial court lacked authority to consider income in a three-year review or that it improperly deviated from the guidelines.

family law

In State v. Williams, a surety company posted a $1,500 appearance bond for a defendant charged with impaired driving offenses; after the defendant failed to appear, the bond was forfeited and became final judgment on August 19, 2010. The surety paid the forfeiture, located and surrendered the defendant to the sheriff later that evening after court hours, and filed a motion to set aside the forfeiture the next day, which fell outside the 150-day statutory window under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(d). The trial court denied the motion to set aside but granted partial remission under § 15A-544.8(b)(2); on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the clear statutory deadline could not be extended for after-hours surrender on a regular weekday and that the surety presented no authority requiring full remission once partial relief was granted. The court also declined to address the school board's cross-issue because it was not properly preserved via cross-appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Williamson v. Williamson, the defendant appealed a trial court's alimony order that awarded her alimony after the parties' separation but dismissed her counterclaim for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, concluding that the trial court erred by including the defendant's 2009 tax refund in her regular monthly income for alimony calculations, as such refunds are not regular income and alimony determinations must rely on present income under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-16.2A. The court affirmed the remainder of the order, holding that the trial court's findings on the plaintiff's income, exclusion of certain evidence, lack of illicit sexual behavior findings, and dismissal of the attorney's fees claim for lack of proper pleadings were supported by competent evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

family law

The case concerned a workers' compensation claim by Dewey Mehaffey against Burger King and its insurer for a 2007 knee injury sustained at work that led to reflex sympathetic dystrophy, chronic pain, depression, and the need for ongoing medical treatment. The North Carolina Industrial Commission awarded compensation for retroactive and future attendant care provided by the plaintiff's wife at 16 hours per day, payment of medical expenses, and costs for equipment including a hospital bed, mobility scooter, and home and vehicle modifications to accommodate a wheelchair. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the Commission's findings on equipment needs and attendant care were supported by competent evidence, particularly the recommendations of the plaintiff's primary care physician which the Commission properly credited over conflicting opinions from other doctors, and that modifications were necessary to enable use of the approved equipment.

labor & employment

In State v. Otto, the defendant appealed her conviction for driving while impaired, arguing that the trial court should have granted her motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. The stop occurred after a trooper observed her vehicle weaving within its lane for three-quarters of a mile near an equestrian club hosting an event, though the trooper lacked personal knowledge that alcohol was being served there that evening. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's finding that the trooper 'knew' the club served alcohol was unsupported by the evidence. Without that fact and absent other indicators of impairment, the court concluded that the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop under the totality of the circumstances. The court therefore reversed the order denying suppression and remanded the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Thomas Lamonte Jackson's appeal from convictions for first-degree sex offense with a child, crime against nature, and indecent liberties with a child, stemming from the sexual abuse of four-year-old C.G. in 2008. The trial court allowed C.G. to testify via one-way closed-circuit television under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1225.1 after a hearing where evidence showed she would suffer serious emotional distress and impaired communication if required to testify in the defendant's presence. On appeal, the defendant argued that this procedure violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights in light of Crawford v. Washington and that the evidence did not support the statutory findings, while also challenging the trial court's initial consideration of aggravating factors not found by the jury. The court held that Maryland v. Craig remains controlling precedent permitting such remote testimony when the required findings are made, that the findings here were supported by the psychologist's testimony, and that any sentencing error was corrected by the trial court itself with no effect on the presumptive-range sentence imposed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Willis v. Willis, the plaintiff, acting as executor, trustee, and beneficiary of Janice Willis's estate and trust, sought to reform a 2005 deed in which Ms. Willis conveyed a remainder interest in her home to her son Eddie while retaining a life estate, claiming the deed resulted from her unilateral mistake in believing it granted Eddie only a lifetime right to live there. After Eddie's death in 2007, the property interest passed to his children, prompting the reformation action based on the deed's failure to reflect Ms. Willis's intent. The trial court granted defendants' motion for directed verdict at the close of evidence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff failed to present more than a scintilla of evidence to overcome the strong presumption favoring the deed as written or to establish the elements of unilateral mistake by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. The court reasoned that Ms. Willis's testimony and discussions with her attorney did not demonstrate a specific intent inconsistent with the deed's terms or that the conveyance was unsupported by consideration.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case involved an association of home care agencies challenging the North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance's new methodology for determining coverage hours under the Medicaid Personal Care Services program, following a 2009 budget law. An administrative law judge issued a preliminary injunction against the changes, but the superior court ruled that the ALJ lacked jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity, dissolved the injunction, and ordered dismissal of the case. On appeal, the court dismissed the matter as moot because subsequent legislation repealed the authorizing provisions for the new criteria and directed the termination of the PCS and PCS-Plus programs upon federal approval. The core reasoning was that the legislative repeal eliminated the controversy, rendering any decision advisory.

healthcareprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a property owners association and the owner of golf courses within a residential community in North Carolina over the closure of one course. The association sued the golf course owner for breaching restrictive covenants requiring operation and maintenance of the amenities, after some residents stopped paying fees following a court ruling on timeshare assessments. The trial court granted the association partial summary judgment on the breach, dismissed most of the owner's defenses and counterclaims, directed a verdict against the frustration of purpose defense, and addressed damages. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the notice of appeal was proper, the covenants allowed enforcement and recovery of damages, and the remaining defenses lacked evidentiary support.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Anderson, the defendant was charged with selling a controlled substance and attaining habitual felon status after initially waiving counsel in district court; he later reaffirmed the waiver in superior court and proceeded to represent himself at trial, resulting in convictions. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court failed to ensure his waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary as required by statute. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the written waivers and limited colloquies were insufficient to satisfy the mandatory inquiry under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242, particularly because the habitual felon charge arose after the initial waiver and no transcript confirmed the scope of advice given. The court therefore granted the defendant a new trial. The decision emphasizes that a certified waiver form alone does not substitute for the trial judge's thorough statutory inquiry into the defendant's understanding of the charges, consequences, and rights.

criminal lawprocedure