State v. Williamson
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-05-15 · cited 3×
The case involved defendant Nathan Williamson’s convictions for two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon arising from a 2009 incident in which he and an accomplice took money and property from a Winston-Salem amusement business at gunpoint. Williamson appealed both the convictions and the trial court’s denial of his motion for appropriate relief, which was based on a post-trial statement from his accomplice that the gun used had been inoperable. The Court of Appeals found no error in the trial proceedings, holding that the defendant presented no evidence at trial that the gun was inoperable and therefore was not entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser offense of common law robbery or dismissal of the charges. It dismissed the appeal from the denial of the motion for appropriate relief because the defendant failed to include the trial court’s written order in the record on appeal, leaving the court unable to review the ruling under the required standard.
criminal lawprocedureguns
State v. Adams
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-05-01 · cited 3×
In State v. Adams, surety Bankers Insurance Company appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to set aside forfeiture of a $20,000 bond it posted for defendant Fred Adams after he failed to appear in a misdemeanor tax case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The court reasoned that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(f) bars setting aside a forfeiture whenever the surety had actual notice—via a judicial official's notation on the release order—of two or more prior failures to appear by the defendant in the same case; the record showed such notice here because the release order reflected failures on 11 May and 30 June 2010, supported by notations in the defendant's court file, regardless of whether an order for arrest had also issued on the second date.
criminal lawproceduretaxes
State v. Glenn
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-04-17 · cited 12×
In State v. Glenn, the defendant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and indecent exposure after a woman who mistook his vehicle for a taxi was injured while fleeing when she discovered he was naked from the waist down. The North Carolina Court of Appeals granted a new trial, holding that the trial court violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by admitting testimony from a police officer about a statement made by an unavailable witness, which was testimonial because its primary purpose was to establish past events for prosecution rather than to address an ongoing emergency. The court further ruled that evidence of a prior incident under Rule 404(b) was improperly admitted, as the earlier event was not sufficiently similar in circumstances or close enough in time to show a common plan or identity rather than mere propensity.
criminal lawprocedure
Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Perdue
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-03-06 · cited 3×
The case concerned whether North Carolina General Statute § 14-306.4, which bans the operation or promotion of sweepstakes that reveal predetermined results through an “entertaining display” such as a video game, violated the First Amendment. Plaintiffs Hest and IIT operated internet-café sweepstakes tied to product sales, allowing customers to reveal outcomes either instantly or by playing video games on terminals; after the statute took effect they amended their suit to claim the law was an unconstitutional, overbroad restriction on protected expression. The trial court held subsection (a)(3)(i) unconstitutionally overbroad but upheld the remainder of the statute and lifted a prior injunction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the statute regulates conduct—the use of video games to conduct sweepstakes—rather than protected speech itself, does not prohibit video games outside that context, and therefore is not facially overbroad under the state or federal constitutions.
criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfree speech
Sandhill Amusements v. State
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-03-06 · cited 2×
Sandhill Amusements and other companies that sold long-distance phone time through retail sweepstakes systems sued North Carolina officials, seeking a declaration that their video-game terminals for revealing prizes did not violate state gambling laws and later challenging the constitutionality of a 2010 statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-306.4) that banned sweepstakes using “entertaining displays.” The trial court granted the state’s motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), upheld the statute as constitutional, and dissolved a preliminary injunction that had protected the plaintiffs’ operations. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the entertaining-display provision must be declared void because it is unconstitutionally overbroad, as decided in the companion case Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State; therefore the trial court’s order could not stand. A dissenting judge would have affirmed, concluding the statute regulated conduct rather than speech, was not overbroad or vague, and did not violate equal-protection or due-process rights.
criminal lawfree speechcivil rights
HIEN NGUYEN v. Taylor
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-02-21 · cited 9×
In this case, Greensboro police officers sued rapper Jayceon Taylor and Búngalo Records after an edited video of the officers’ 2005 arrest of Taylor was included in Taylor’s “Stop Snitchin’ Stop Lyin’” DVD, along with packaging and website statements claiming the footage showed a wrongful arrest; the officers alleged defamation, appropriation of likeness, and unfair or deceptive trade practices. Following Búngalo’s default and summary judgment against Taylor based on unanswered requests for admission, the trial court conducted a bench trial on damages and awarded each plaintiff $1 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages, jointly and severally. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the compensatory damages awards against both defendants, holding that the trial court’s findings were supported by competent evidence and that Búngalo’s default and the officers’ testimony established proximate causation. It vacated the punitive damages award against Búngalo because the trial court improperly relied on co-defendants’ profits and ability to pay, and remanded the punitive award against Taylor for the trial court to confirm that the required aggravating factor was proven by clear and convincing evidence, while affirming the award of attorneys’ fees.
torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory