Ann Marie Calabria

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

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

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

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 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

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

In State v. King, defendant Valerie King appealed after a trial court set aside her Alford plea agreement—under which she pled guilty to one misdemeanor charge in exchange for dismissal of trafficking and other drug-related indictments plus return of seized cash and jewelry—and reinstated the original charges following her conviction and lengthy sentence. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and reversed the order setting aside the plea. It held that the State breached the agreement by failing to return the funds after they were transferred to the DEA for federal forfeiture proceedings, but that specific performance remained feasible because currency is fungible and the State could pay an equivalent amount regardless of the exact bills seized. The court reasoned that the trial judge erred by rescinding the plea rather than enforcing it when the defendant sought performance, and it ordered reinstatement of the plea terms including repayment of the seized amounts.

criminal lawprocedure

In 2009, after Northern Guilford High School won a state basketball championship, the North Carolina High School Athletic Association vacated the title upon determining that two ineligible players had participated due to residency violations, as required by the association’s handbook rules. Players and coaches from the team sued the association for negligence and sought a declaratory judgment reinstating the championship. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs were not members of the voluntary athletic association, held no legally protected property interest in the title (which belonged to the school), and alleged only hypothetical rather than particularized, actual injuries such as lost reputation or opportunities; therefore, only the school could have challenged the forfeiture.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

The case involved Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church suing Reynolds Construction Company and architect Leroy Reynolds over alleged defects in a church construction project after the parties could not resolve the issues through mediation. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the two contracts, but the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and remanded for an order compelling arbitration. The court held that both the architect contract and construction contract contained clear, mandatory arbitration provisions stating that disputes arising from the agreements shall be resolved by arbitration after mediation. It rejected the church’s argument that references to “legal or equitable proceedings” created an option for litigation, interpreting those clauses instead as preserving court access only if all parties mutually waived arbitration—a condition not met here. Because the contracts’ plain language established valid agreements to arbitrate and the dispute fell within their scope, the trial court erred in refusing to enforce them.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Pete Wall Plumbing Co. v. Sandra Anderson Builders, Inc., a plumbing supplier filed notices of claim of lien on six properties after SAB, a sublessee, failed to pay for materials and labor used in home construction. The properties were owned by the Housing Authority of Greensboro, leased to Willow Oaks, and subleased to SAB under recorded agreements that expressly barred SAB from encumbering the superior interests; four lots had already been conveyed to third-party buyers by the time the liens were filed. The trial court granted a motion to strike and discharged the liens, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44A-9 a lien is valid only to the extent of the contracting party's interest in the property; because SAB held only a subleasehold that terminated upon expiration or default and the recorded subleases prohibited binding the fee or superior leasehold interests, no enforceable lien could attach to the properties.

property

The case involved family members of a homicide victim suing Onslow Memorial Hospital for common-law invasion of privacy (specifically, intrusion upon seclusion) after hospital employees accessed, viewed, and disclosed x-ray autopsy photographs of the deceased to third parties. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that the claim failed as a matter of law because N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-389.1 expressly permits any member of the public to inspect and examine original autopsy photographs (subject only to reasonable time and supervision limits), rendering them non-private for purposes of the tort; any statutory violations by the employees were relevant only to potential criminal liability, not a civil privacy claim.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

In Carsanaro v. Colvin, plaintiff Joseph Carsanaro sued defendant John Trevor Colvin after Colvin had a sexual affair with Carsanaro’s wife, resulting in Carsanaro contracting genital herpes; the complaint asserted claims for criminal conversation, negligent infliction of a sexually transmitted disease (NISTD), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the NISTD claim but allowed the others to proceed. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the NISTD claim, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged that Colvin knew or should have known of his infection and owed a duty of care to warn foreseeable sexual partners, including the known spouse of an adulterous partner, under traditional negligence principles recognized in prior cases such as Crowell. The court also dismissed the defendant’s cross-appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss the remaining claims, finding it interlocutory and not affecting a substantial right. Both the plaintiff’s appeal and the overlapping damages issues were deemed properly before the court because they involved intertwined factual questions that warranted resolution by a single jury.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between two yacht clubs over the termination of a lease for property in Havelock, North Carolina. Plaintiff Havelock Yacht Club, Inc. leased the property to defendant Crystal Lake Yacht Club, Inc. starting in 1983; after multiple renewals the arrangement became a month-to-month tenancy that plaintiff terminated effective March 2010. When defendant remained on the premises, plaintiff filed a summary ejectment action. The trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that timely notice had been given and that affidavits questioning the authority of plaintiff's president did not raise a genuine issue of material fact under the de facto officer doctrine. A dissent argued that evidence of the president's authority was contradictory and insufficient to support summary judgment.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Jarvis, the defendant was convicted via Alford plea of four counts of taking indecent liberties with a child after admitting to sexual acts with a minor under 16 whom he coached in softball; the trial court imposed probation and ordered him to enroll in satellite-based monitoring (SBM) for ten years after classifying the offense as reportable, aggravated, and involving abuse of a minor that required the highest level of supervision. The Court of Appeals vacated the SBM order and remanded, holding that indecent liberties cannot qualify as an aggravated offense and that the trial court's findings on the need for maximum supervision were not supported by competent evidence regarding factors like remorse. The court rejected the defendant's constitutional challenges to SBM on double jeopardy and cruel-and-unusual-punishment grounds, citing controlling precedent, but noted clerical errors in the judgment and directed the trial court to make additional findings on remand.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by plaintiff Lipscomb against employer Mayflower Vehicle Systems and its carrier after he slipped on an oil spill at work in 2004, sustaining a back injury and knee contusion. The employer admitted compensability and paid temporary total disability benefits for a period, but disputes arose over approval of a second physician (Dr. Hoski), the necessity of back surgery, ongoing medical expenses, and the calculation of temporary partial disability payments after a trial return to work. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed the Industrial Commission's denial of the defendants' motion for reconsideration of its 2010 Opinion and Award. The court reversed the denial of the motion for reconsideration, vacated and remanded the portions addressing the amount of temporary partial disability payments for redetermination, and affirmed the remainder, including approval of Dr. Hoski's treatment as reasonably necessary based on evidence that the plaintiff complied with treatment protocols, completed conservative care, and received beneficial results from surgery.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Sorrow, the defendant appealed the trial court's revocation of his probation and activation of his suspended sentence for violating terms of supervised release after pleading guilty to criminal offenses. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded for a new probation revocation hearing, ruling that the trial court improperly allowed the defendant to proceed pro se without satisfying the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242. The court reasoned that defendants have a statutory right to counsel at such hearings, and any waiver of that right must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, which requires the trial court to make a thorough inquiry confirming the defendant understands the right to counsel, the consequences of waiver, and the nature of the charges and proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a contract for the construction of a custom 57-foot sport fishing boat between plaintiff D.G. II, LLC and defendants Clifford E. Nix and Johnson Boat Works, where the plaintiff paid a $100,000 deposit but the defendants failed to deliver the boat by the agreed date, terminated the contract citing anticipatory breach after the plaintiff's demands for compensation or modifications, and sold the boat to a third party. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, specific performance, unfair and deceptive practices, and damages, while the defendants moved for summary judgment on the unfair and deceptive practices claim. The trial court granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment on breach of contract (awarding return of the deposit) but granted the defendants summary judgment on unfair and deceptive practices, denied additional damages, and denied a new trial; the appellate court affirmed all these rulings. The core reasoning was that the jury's findings supported no additional damages beyond the deposit (with the contract price equaling the boat's market value), the evidence did not establish unfair or deceptive practices, and any failure to award nominal damages did not require reversal or retrial since it would not support further relief under applicable law.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In State v. White, the defendant was charged with multiple drug, firearm, and alcohol offenses after undercover buys and a search of his property. He moved to suppress evidence and to dismiss the felon-in-possession charges on constitutional grounds; the trial court denied both motions. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant entered an Alford plea while attempting to reserve the right to appeal the motion-to-dismiss ruling. The Court of Appeals held that North Carolina statutes grant no right to appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss after a guilty plea, and that a plea conditioned on such an unenforceable reservation cannot stand. The court therefore vacated the judgment and remanded the case.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a mother's appeal from a trial court order adjudicating her one-month-old child as abused and neglected after a domestic altercation in which the mother struck her boyfriend while holding the infant, causing her to fall while being hit repeatedly, though the child was unharmed. The McDowell County Department of Social Services took custody, and after a hearing the trial court continued that custody with a plan for reunification. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that appointment of a GAL program staff member satisfied statutory requirements, that the GAL's duties were adequately performed during adjudication and disposition, and that the mother's testimony and other evidence supported the abuse and neglect findings based on the substantial risk of harm and surrounding circumstances including failure to report the incident and her bipolar disorder treatment.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a condominium association seeking to foreclose on a lien against unit owners for nonpayment of a special assessment levied to cover renovations to their specific building, which the owners had requested. The trial court dismissed the foreclosure action under Rule 41, ruling that the assessment was unlawful because it was not uniform and did not comply with the association's declaration and bylaws under the Unit Ownership Act. The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the assessment could be valid under the governing documents or alternatively under an implied contract theory based on the owners' request for the work and the association's resulting expenditures.

property