Clifton E. Johnson

The case involved Chris Morse, who was convicted under N.C.G.S. § 14-202.3 of knowingly soliciting a person he believed to be a child by computer with intent to commit an unlawful sex act after he entered an online chat room, engaged in explicit conversations with an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old girl, and arranged to meet her for sexual activity. Morse appealed, claiming the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence showed no credible basis for an entrapment instruction because the criminal design originated with the defendant rather than law enforcement. The court reasoned that Morse initiated all sexually charged exchanges, formulated the meeting plan, and pursued it with little urging from the undercover operatives, demonstrating his predisposition to commit the offense.

criminal law

This case involved a plaintiff seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by the defendant's negligence in a personal injury action. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of evidence. The plaintiff appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the record contained no written judgment signed by the judge and filed with the clerk. The court explained that under the version of North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 58 applicable to judgments on or after October 1, 1994, an oral ruling announced in open court is merely the rendering of judgment and does not constitute entry of judgment, which is required to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

In Tataragasi v. Tataragasi, a North Carolina court addressed child custody jurisdiction in a divorce case involving an American wife and her Turkish husband. The wife fled to North Carolina with the children in 1991 after alleging years of physical and sexual abuse by the husband, and she obtained emergency custody orders there. The husband later obtained a divorce and custody decree in Turkey. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that the trial court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, finding North Carolina to be the children's home state, that it served the children's best interests, and that an emergency existed due to the history of abuse, while noting the Turkish proceedings did not conform to UCCJA standards.

family lawprocedure

Starco, Inc. sued AMG Bonding & Insurance Services, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and Dale Clark in North Carolina Superior Court for breach of contract and negligence arising from bid bonds. AMG moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), arguing it had no contacts with North Carolina. The trial court denied the motion after finding AMG had solicited business from a North Carolina resident, issued bonds connected to North Carolina projects, and thereby established minimum contacts. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that AMG purposefully availed itself of North Carolina law by directly soliciting the business and engaging in transactions tied to the state, satisfying due process requirements for jurisdiction.

procedure

In State v. Rogers, the defendant was charged with driving while impaired after being stopped by a trooper directing traffic during a hostage situation; he had stopped his car in the intersection instead of turning as directed, leading to an odor of alcohol being detected, an Alco-sensor test, and his arrest. After pleading guilty in district court and appealing for a de novo trial, he moved to suppress the evidence on grounds of an illegal seizure without reasonable suspicion and an arrest without probable cause, and later sought dismissal on double jeopardy grounds due to a prior license revocation. The trial court denied both motions, the jury convicted him based on an alcohol concentration over the limit, and he was sentenced to probation. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the trooper's observations provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest despite only one Alco-sensor test being administered, and that double jeopardy did not bar the prosecution under precedent. The decision rested on Fourth Amendment standards applied to the totality of circumstances and North Carolina statutes governing DWI procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an employee at a poultry plant operated by House of Raeford Farms who was injured in a slip-and-fall accident, terminated after her absence, and filed a complaint with the North Carolina Department of Labor alleging retaliation in violation of the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA). The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer and dismissed the Commissioner's civil action, finding that the investigation and determination of merit had not occurred within the 90-day period required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-242(a). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory deadline is directory rather than jurisdictional because the provision does not specify any consequence for missing the deadline and the legislative history shows an intent to enable employees to report workplace violations without fear of reprisal. The court concluded there were genuine issues of material fact and remanded for further proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by a fourteen-year-old student and his father against the Nash/Rocky Mount Board of Education for personal injuries from an assault by another student on a school bus, alleging negligence in failing to discipline violent students, provide bus monitors, or enforce safety policies. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the board retained sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed, determining that the board's liability insurance policy excluded coverage for claims arising from the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading, or unloading of automobiles, including school buses, and that the alleged acts of negligence were directly related to bus operations. Plaintiffs' arguments that the exclusion did not apply because the negligence occurred outside the bus or was unrelated to the vehicle's inherent nature were rejected, as the claims fell squarely within the policy's automobile exclusion.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Fieldcrest Cannon seeking reimbursement from its insurers for defense costs, judgments, and settlements related to multiple employment discrimination claims against its predecessor Cannon Mills in the 1980s. The primary insurer Fireman's Fund had denied coverage for all claims under its comprehensive general liability policies, while excess insurers North River and Mission (later handled by the Guaranty Association) had provided some defense for one suit. The appellate court held that Fireman's Fund policies covered only the Rosenthal wrongful termination and discrimination suit, but not the other sex and age discrimination claims or EEOC complaints, because those did not qualify as covered occurrences under the policy terms. It therefore reversed the trial court's summary judgment rulings that had imposed coverage on Fireman's Fund for the uncovered claims and dismissed or limited the excess carriers, remanding for further proceedings on the excess policies.

labor & employmentcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involved Franklin Allen Moore suing police officer T.H. Evans, the police chief, and the City of Ayden after Moore was arrested for felonious breaking and entering and larceny based on a neighbor's vague identification of clothing from a distance; he was held on a $20,000 secured bond without consideration of statutory factors and not released for weeks even after another person confessed to the crime. Moore asserted claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including violations of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that defendant Evans was entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim because the post-arrest investigation, though flawed, did not demonstrate deliberate or reckless intent and amounted at most to negligence, citing precedents such as Simmons v. McElveen and Romero v. Fay. Accordingly, the opinion would reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment and direct entry of judgment for all defendants.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves an appeal by defendants, including the Prolife Action League, from a trial court order requiring disclosure of documents related to the League's assets, organization, and business activities as part of discovery in a lawsuit. Plaintiffs, a doctor and his family, had sued alleging intimidation, harassment, and extortion stemming from defendants' protests against the doctor's performance of legal abortions; the trial court had previously granted a preliminary injunction that was affirmed on appeal, and it ordered the document production under a protective confidentiality order after determining the materials were relevant to potential evidence and that any First Amendment concerns did not justify withholding them. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order was interlocutory and did not affect a substantial right permitting immediate review because it imposed no sanctions or contempt findings, even though defendants asserted a violation of associational rights under the First Amendment.

free speechabortionprocedure

This case involved the enforcement in North Carolina of a 1981 New Jersey divorce decree and child support order requiring defendant Timothy Otte to pay plaintiff Mary Kelly $300 monthly per child, with annual CPI adjustments, after both parties relocated to North Carolina. The trial court registered the foreign order, denied the defendant's motion to vacate arrearages from the prior ten years, granted it for older amounts under the statute of limitations, and set prospective support at $300 monthly. On appeal, the court held that the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA) superseded conflicting provisions of North Carolina's repealed URESA regarding registration and modification, that New Jersey had lost continuing exclusive jurisdiction, and that the defendant could raise the statute of limitations defense in a post-registration motion under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.10, leading to affirmance of the trial court's order.

family lawfederal powerprocedure

In this case, the Guilford County Child Support Enforcement Unit sued John Robert Davis on behalf of Janet Harmon Gardner to establish Davis as the biological father of Gardner's minor child for purposes of child support, attaching evidence that Clifford J. Ellis (Gardner's ex-husband) could not be the father. Davis moved to dismiss, arguing that a 1992 uncontested divorce judgment naming Ellis as the father barred the action under res judicata or collateral estoppel. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss and its order requiring Davis to submit to a blood test, holding that collateral estoppel did not apply because the divorce judgment relied solely on the presumption of legitimacy from birth during marriage without actually litigating biological paternity, and that the presumption could be rebutted by blood test evidence. The court noted the appeal was interlocutory but addressed the merits to expedite resolution.

family lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Ronald Sykes, who suffered severe burns while operating a machine at his employer Sanfatex, sued Keiltex Industries (the machine's designer and installer) for negligence and breach of warranties after previously settling related claims against Sanfatex and a supervisor through mediation. The trial court granted summary judgment to Keiltex based on a general release executed by Sykes that discharged not only the named parties but also all other persons, firms, and corporations from any claims arising from the 1991 incident. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the release's unambiguous terms barred Sykes's claims against Keiltex, that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding mutual mistake or third-party beneficiary status, and that the trial court properly exercised discretion in allowing late filings and considering the unpled release defense on summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Sisk, defendant Amy Jane Sisk was charged with uttering a forged check with intent to defraud after Wachovia Bank discovered unauthorized checks totaling $43,000 drawn on Robert Arey's account, with evidence showing she and her boyfriend forged and cashed several checks. The trial court convicted her and imposed a suspended sentence with probation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed claims of fatal variance between the indictment and proof (including the victim's bank name and a misnomer in the indictment), improper admission of Arey's affidavits stating the signatures were forgeries, and other evidentiary rulings. The majority held that the indictment could be amended to conform to the evidence, any variances were not prejudicial, and any errors in admitting evidence were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in affirmance of the conviction with no prejudicial error. A dissent argued that the affidavits violated constitutional rights and could not be deemed harmless.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Myers, the defendant was convicted of burglary and felonious larceny after evidence showed he entered a home at night, took food items, and was found nearby in an intoxicated state. The defendant argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury on an insanity defense based on his history of alcohol dependence, personality disorder, and possible organic brain issues, and also challenged the sentencing for failing to make separate findings on aggravating and mitigating factors for each offense. The court held that voluntary intoxication does not qualify as insanity under the M'Naghten rule absent evidence of a permanent or chronic mental disease that prevented distinguishing right from wrong, and that the trial court's findings on sentencing factors were sufficient even though presented jointly. It therefore found no error in the proceedings and affirmed the convictions and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved taxpayers appealing Wake County's 1992 property tax valuation of a 194.77-acre undeveloped tract zoned R-4 in Raleigh's extraterritorial jurisdiction, initially set at $4.68 million and reduced by the county board to about $3.29 million for the land. Taxpayers argued the true value was $1.9 million and presented expert testimony using sales comparison and development approaches, which accounted for topography, comparable sales, and feasible subdivision into 186 half-acre lots. Wake County's appraiser relied on post-valuation-date sales, failed to adjust for key factors like topography, and used an improper development schedule, leading the Property Tax Commission to find the county's method arbitrary and substantially exceeding true value under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-317(a)(1). The Commission accepted the taxpayers' evidence rebutting the presumption of correctness and set the valuation accordingly. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision.

taxesproperty

This case involved a dispute between Christ Lutheran Church and its insurer, State Farm, over the amount of coverage available under an employee dishonesty policy for losses caused by the church treasurer's embezzlement of $32,760 through twenty-four separate checks over about a year. The policy limited coverage to $5,000 per occurrence and defined an occurrence as all loss from a single act or series of related acts by one or more persons. The trial court ruled that the embezzlement constituted a single occurrence, limiting recovery to $5,000, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the policy language was unambiguous, that the checks were part of a continuing dishonest scheme rather than separate acts, and that precedents from other jurisdictions supported treating such related acts as one occurrence under similar policy definitions.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a 1990 rear-end car collision in Cary, North Carolina, in which plaintiff Bowers claimed he suffered permanent back and foot injuries requiring extensive chiropractic, orthopedic, and other treatments. Bowers sued defendant Olf for negligence and damages, presenting medical testimony about ongoing pain and lost wages, while the defense offered contrary expert evidence that the injuries had resolved and further treatment was unnecessary. On appeal after trial, Bowers argued errors including improper admission of the defendant's testimony about his own lack of injury and refusal to give a specific pattern jury instruction on considering only matters in evidence. The court held that several arguments were abandoned for lack of supporting authority and that the remaining claims lacked merit because the jury instructions adequately covered damages, permanence, and causation without needing the precise requested language. The court therefore affirmed the judgment, concluding the plaintiff received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Carr, the defendant was convicted of possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine after police stopped a vehicle in which he was a passenger, searched it, and found two pill bottles containing cocaine near the front passenger seat. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession and that the trial court erred in admitting the drug evidence due to an inadequate chain of custody. The court held that the evidence was sufficient because the defendant was in close proximity to the drugs, gave a false name to police, and was associated with known drug offenders, allowing a reasonable inference of dominion and control. The court also ruled that the State adequately authenticated the evidence through testimony that the packages were sealed and substantially unchanged, so a detailed chain of custody was unnecessary. The conviction was affirmed with no error found.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the criminal prosecution of a university student accused of stealing computers and related equipment from a campus lab at Johnson C. Smith University. The state's evidence included the defendant's presence in the lab the night before the theft was discovered, matching items found in his car such as a lock that fit a key from the lab, computer manuals discarded nearby, and his access to the secure area via a provided code. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, instructed the jury on the doctrine of recent possession, and applied an aggravating sentencing factor for taking advantage of a position of trust. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of guilt and that the instructions and aggravating factor were properly applied.

criminal lawprocedure