Fatta v. M & M Properties Management, Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-06-19 · cited 11×
In Fatta v. M & M Properties Management, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that his former employer violated the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA) and wrongfully discharged him in violation of public policy after he reported a workplace injury sustained during training and later filed a workers’ compensation claim. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing that the employer’s stated reason for termination—documented poor job performance noted from the beginning of his short employment—was a pretext for retaliation, as the evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds was not overcome by the plaintiff’s circumstantial assertions.
labor & employmenttorts & liability
Holloway v. Holloway
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-06-05 · cited 11×
In Holloway v. Holloway, a mother sued her son in North Carolina superior court for breach of an oral agreement and to recover payments she made on his modular home after moving from California in 2007 to live there permanently in exchange for covering the mortgage, back taxes, and land rent. The son had previously filed an unsuccessful summary ejectment action against her in small claims court, which she won on appeal to district court. The trial court denied the son's motions to dismiss on grounds of res judicata and failure to state a claim, found no enforceable contract but a fiduciary relationship based on the parties' discussions and her reliance on him for care, and awarded her roughly $29,870 on an unjust enrichment theory. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mother's claims were not compulsory counterclaims in the prior ejectment case because they had not matured, that her complaint was facially sufficient, and that competent evidence supported the trial court's finding of a fiduciary relationship arising from the son's encouragement and assistance in her relocation.
family lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability
State v. LAUREAN
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-05-01 · cited 8×
In January 2008, defendant Ceasar Armando Laurean, a Marine corporal, was indicted on charges including first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and financial transaction card theft arising from the December 2007 killing of Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach, whose body was found burned and buried in a fire pit at his home after she had accused him of sexual assault; he was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, Laurean argued that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder and by excluding evidence of specific instances of the victim’s disciplinary conduct. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence of premeditation and deliberation supported a first-degree murder instruction and did not require a second-degree option, and that the excluded conduct evidence was irrelevant under Rules 404(b) and 403 because it did not tend to prove motive, plan, or any essential element while the victim’s general reputation for truthfulness had been admitted. The court therefore found no error in the trial proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Hewson
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-04-17 · cited 10×
In State v. Hewson, defendant Robert Hewson, convicted in 2005 of first-degree murder and related charges based on evidence that he shot into an occupied home, killing his wife, later filed a pro se motion seeking post-conviction independent DNA testing of items from the crime scene and his clothing. He argued that advances in DNA analysis and alleged problems at the SBI lab could produce results contradicting the original tests and supporting his claim that he was inside the house rather than firing from outside. The trial court denied the motion, finding the supporting affidavit insufficient and the requested testing not material to the defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even if new testing showed the defendant had been inside or in close contact with the victim, it would not undermine the substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation or the felony-murder theory based on shooting into occupied property, and thus created no reasonable probability of a different outcome.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Baker Investigation
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-04-17
This case arose from the investigation into the 2010 disappearance of Zahra Baker, during which multiple search warrants and related documents were sealed by court orders upon the State's motion. An administrative order issued by the senior resident superior court judge established procedures requiring that such sealing orders expire after 30 days unless extended by a timely motion. When news media organizations requested access to warrants sealed for more than 30 days and the State filed its extension motion only afterward, Superior Court Judge Poovey ordered the documents unsealed in accordance with the administrative order's terms. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the unsealing complied with the administrative procedures, reflected the presumptive public right of access to court records, and did not involve improper exercise of appellate jurisdiction or limitation of judicial discretion, as the original sealing orders did not conflict with the 30-day expiration rule.
criminal lawprocedurefree speech
State v. Rogers
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-03-06 · cited 10×
In State v. Rogers, the defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury after shooting Ralston, the husband of a woman with whom the defendant had been having an affair. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by disqualifying his chosen attorney, did not commit plain error by instructing the jury that the defendant bore the burden of persuasion on his automatism defense, and did not violate double jeopardy by entering judgment on both offenses. The court reasoned that the record showed a serious potential conflict of interest justifying removal of counsel, that precedent established the defendant’s burden on automatism, and that each offense contained at least one element the other did not, so convictions on both were permissible even though they arose from the same incident.
criminal lawprocedure