State v. Davis
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-06-19
In State v. Davis, the defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual offense with a child and two counts of indecent liberties with a child based on allegations that he sexually assaulted his young son on two occasions. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and granted a new trial. The court held that the trial judge improperly admitted, under Evidence Rule 404(b), the defendant's handwritten composition-book entries describing forcible anal sex with an adult woman, and also erred by permitting the State to cross-examine the defendant about the results of a psychological evaluation—never introduced into evidence—that labeled him a “psychopathic deviant.” These errors were deemed prejudicial because the defendant had presented evidence of possible coaching by the child's mother and alternative explanations for the DNA found on the child's underwear, creating a reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict absent the improper evidence.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Shareef
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-06-19
In State v. Shareef, defendant Abdullah El-Amin Shareef was convicted of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, and related assault and larceny charges after stealing a city van and later a pickup truck on April 14, 2004, and repeatedly striking five individuals with the vehicles while also stabbing one victim. On appeal, Shareef argued that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the specific-intent offenses because evidence of his mental illness established diminished capacity. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the State introduced sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find that Shareef acted with the specific intent to kill. The court further concluded that the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain lay-witness testimony about the defendant’s later mental-health history under Evidence Rules 401 and 403, and that any error would not have affected the outcome given the other evidence presented.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Tw
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-06-05
In In re T.W., a juvenile was adjudicated delinquent after admitting to indecent liberties between minors and being found responsible for three counts each of second-degree sexual offense and crimes against nature involving other minors with whom he attended school and karate class. The Court of Appeals of North Carolina reversed the second-degree sexual offense adjudications, holding that the trial court should have granted the juvenile's motion to dismiss those counts for insufficient evidence. The court reasoned that the State proved neither actual force nor constructive force, as the encounters involved no explicit threats and the relationships among the similarly aged minors—who shared some cognitive difficulties and a leader-follower dynamic—did not qualify for the constructive-force doctrine previously applied only to parent-child or equivalent authority relationships. The court affirmed the indecent-liberties admission and crimes-against-nature findings and remanded for a new dispositional order.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Tyson
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-05-15 · cited 4×
In State v. Tyson, the defendant was charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon; after his first trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury, he requested a transcript of the prior proceedings before the retrial to assist with cross-examining the state's witnesses, but the trial court denied the request and he was convicted. The Court of Appeals held that the denial violated the defendant's equal protection rights and ordered a new trial. Under precedents such as Britt v. North Carolina and State v. Rankin, an indigent defendant is entitled to a transcript when it is necessary for an effective defense unless substantially equivalent alternatives are available. The trial court's oral findings were insufficient because they characterized the asserted need as mere speculation without case-specific reasons why no transcript was required and vaguely referenced unspecified "measures" or "means" to protect rights without establishing any adequate substitute. This failure to apply the required two-part test entitled the defendant to a new trial.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
State v. Rollins
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-05-15 · cited 4×
The case involved defendant Demario Rollins's appeal of his second-degree murder conviction after he caused a fatal car crash while fleeing police following a shoplifting incident. Rollins, who had no driver's license, took over driving during a police stop, led officers on a high-speed chase exceeding posted limits, drove on the wrong side of the road and through fields, and ultimately collided head-on with the victim's car at over 65 mph, killing her. On appeal, he primarily argued that the State presented insufficient evidence of malice to support the second-degree murder charge. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was materially indistinguishable from that found sufficient in prior cases such as State v. Mack and State v. Lloyd, so the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss. The court also rejected a challenge to the jury instructions on verdict unanimity, finding they were not coercive when read as a whole.
criminal lawprocedure
Waste Industries USA, Inc. v. State
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-05-01 · cited 5×
The case involved plaintiffs Waste Industries USA and Black Bear Disposal, who sought to develop a municipal solid waste landfill in Camden County, North Carolina, after obtaining a local franchise agreement in 2002. Following a state moratorium on new landfills and the enactment of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-295.6, which imposed size and location restrictions, plaintiffs sued the State and intervenors, claiming the statute violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state waste, along with related state-law claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the law did not facially discriminate and that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of discriminatory legislative purpose or effect. The court reasoned that the General Assembly’s stated goals—protecting public health, the environment, and financial security—were legitimate, plaintiffs’ evidence of hidden intent was sparse and unpersuasive, and any incidental burdens on interstate commerce did not outweigh the law’s benefits. The remaining claims were likewise rejected for lack of supporting evidence.
business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power