Eric L. Levinson

The case involved Joseph Lamar Stokley, who was convicted by a jury of trafficking in cocaine by possession, possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, and maintaining a dwelling for keeping and selling controlled substances based on evidence seized from his home during execution of a search warrant. The trial court denied his pretrial motions to suppress the evidence for lack of probable cause and to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who had made a controlled buy from him. On appeal, the court found no error, holding that the warrant application was supported by probable cause from police surveillance of drug activity and the controlled purchase, and that disclosure of the informant was not required because the informant was not present during the search and the defendant failed to show a need for the identity. The court also rejected related claims regarding the informant's potential testimony and other evidentiary issues.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Kevin Greene against Conlon Construction Company and its insurer after Greene suffered a back and leg injury while working on a construction project in Georgia. Greene had been hired from North Carolina, received a fixed weekly per diem allowance for out-of-town work, and initially filed in Georgia before seeking benefits through the North Carolina Industrial Commission, which awarded medical and disability payments that included the per diem in his average weekly wage calculation. The defendants appealed, arguing the per diem should not be counted as wages. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(5) the allowance qualified as paid in lieu of wages because it was a fixed sum provided regardless of actual expenses and at the employee's discretion, supported by competent evidence in the record.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Ruben Wright, Jr.'s conviction for the first-degree murder of James Taulbee, whose wife Zene was having an affair with the defendant. The prosecution presented evidence including phone records linking Wright to Zene, witness observations, and Wright's own statements to officers admitting he reloaded the gun used in the shooting while claiming Zene fired it. Wright appealed, arguing that statements he made while detained in a military brig should have been suppressed because he was not given Miranda warnings during one interview. The Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the conviction, holding that Wright was not in custody for Miranda purposes during the brig interview since he was not formally arrested, was free to leave the room, and had been advised of his rights in prior interviews. A concurring opinion noted that any potential error would have been harmless given the earlier Miranda warnings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a medical malpractice action brought by a mother and her profoundly disabled child against a hospital, its residency program, and various physicians and staff, alleging that negligence during labor and delivery caused the child's cerebral palsy and related injuries. After a multi-week trial, the trial court entered judgment for the defendants with costs taxed against the plaintiffs. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's questioning of witnesses to clarify complex medical issues or in the overall conduct of the trial, but reversed in part the costs award because certain expert witness fees and other expenses were not recoverable under North Carolina law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved the State appealing a trial court's suppression of evidence, including crack cocaine, firearms, and cash, found during execution of a search warrant at the defendant's mobile home. Officers had obtained the warrant based on controlled buys by confidential informants, knocked and announced at the front door, waited about five seconds without response, and then forced entry with a battering ram before securing the premises and conducting the search. The trial court concluded that the forced entry violated the Fourth Amendment and constituted a substantial violation of North Carolina's knock-and-announce statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-251) because there was no evidence justifying the brief wait or forced entry. The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the evidence was discovered during the later search under a valid warrant rather than as a direct result of the improper entry, so the statutory and constitutional violations did not require suppression under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Wilson v. Wilson, an attorney appealed a trial court order that struck her notice of charging lien for unpaid fees in an equitable distribution case and imposed Rule 11 sanctions against her while denying her cross-motion for sanctions. The attorney had filed the lien notice after her client terminated her representation but before entry of the final judgment. The court held that the filing violated the legal sufficiency requirement of Rule 11 because no final judgment existed against which a charging lien could attach, and the client's motion sought appropriate relief even if citing incorrect rules. It therefore affirmed the sanctions award covering the client's attorney fees and the denial of sanctions against the client.

procedurefamily law

This case concerned whether a surviving spouse could receive a year's allowance and an elective share from a decedent's estate despite a separation agreement that waived inheritance rights. The couple had married, separated briefly while executing the waiver agreement, reconciled the next day, and remained together until the decedent's death; the will predated the marriage and did not name the spouse. The court affirmed the clerk's orders granting the allowance and elective share, holding that the spouse's timely applications were proper and that reconciliation had rescinded the executory waiver provisions under established precedent. It also ruled that the appellant's challenge to the allowance was untimely because no appeal had been filed within the statutory ten-day period after the assignment.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case arose from a police car accident in which plaintiff Jones sued the City of Durham and Officer Kelly for injuries, asserting claims of ordinary and gross negligence, common-law obstruction of justice based on a missing videotape from the officer's car, and state constitutional violations stemming from the City's assertion of governmental immunity. Following a Supreme Court remand finding sufficient evidence of gross negligence, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly dismissed the ordinary negligence claim but correctly denied summary judgment on the obstruction claim, as a jury could find the tape was destroyed or lost. The court reversed the denial of summary judgment on the constitutional claim, ruling that the City presented uncontradicted evidence it never denies claims based on sovereign immunity but asserts the defense in litigation when appropriate, and that immunity may be waived only by purchasing liability insurance under state statute. The decision affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of summary judgment on the constitutional claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case arose from a 2003 explosion during blasting work on a North Carolina highway project, in which subcontractor Piedmont Drilling & Blasting damaged sewer lines being installed by general contractor Vecellio & Grogan under a state contract; V&G sued Piedmont and its insurer on claims of strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity, negligence, breach of contract, and contractual indemnity, after the insurer made a partial advance payment. The trial court granted Piedmont summary judgment dismissing all claims and quashed V&G's subpoena to an engineering firm that had investigated the blast for the insurer. The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, holding that North Carolina precedent treats blasting as an ultra-hazardous activity imposing strict liability and that genuine issues of material fact existed on the remaining claims, while dismissing the subpoena appeal because V&G failed to include the withheld documents in the appellate record.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Joan Myrtle Shannon's convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder of her husband, based on evidence that she enlisted her daughter to shoot him for insurance proceeds while involved in an extramarital relationship. The Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the convictions, ruling that the trial court properly admitted evidence of the defendant's participation in a "swingers" club as relevant to motive and opportunity. On an issue of first impression, the court held that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-903(a)(1) requires prosecutors to disclose witness statements made during pretrial interviews in written or recorded form, as this obligation is distinct from protected work product under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-904. The majority reasoned that the statute mandates memorialization of oral statements to promote discovery and fairness in criminal proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the Forsyth County Department of Social Services petitioning to terminate a mother's parental rights to her two minor children, R.S. and C.T., after they had been in DSS custody since 2003. The Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the termination of parental rights as to C.T., finding sufficient evidence of neglect, but vacated the order as to R.S. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that no summons had been issued regarding R.S., which is required to invoke the court's jurisdiction in termination proceedings, and that the mother's participation did not waive this jurisdictional defect. The termination for C.T. was upheld based on findings that the mother neglected the child and there was a probability of continued neglect.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Eric Marshall Hammett's appeal of his convictions on three counts of statutory sexual offense and seven counts of taking indecent liberties with a child. The court addressed the defendant's claims that the trial court improperly excluded evidence under North Carolina's Rape Shield Statute suggesting the victim had slept in the same bed with a boyfriend, finding no supporting evidence of sexual activity to make it relevant. It also reviewed the admission of the victim's testimony about the defendant's nakedness, sexual discussions, and pornographic videos, as well as a friend's belief in her claims, but determined these issues were not preserved for appeal and did not constitute plain error. The court concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the indecent liberties convictions, including acts like french kissing and masturbation in the victim's presence without requiring physical contact. It ultimately found no error and upheld the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Shirley and Samuel Webb suing Dr. Ira Hardy for negligence after a November 1999 spinal surgery in which the doctor severed the L5 nerve root, leading to the patient's ongoing leg pain and numbness; the patient learned of the severance in December 2000. The first complaint was filed in November 2003, voluntarily dismissed, and refiled in March 2005. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on statute of limitations grounds, and the appeals court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the three-year limitations period under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-52(16) and 1-15(c) began running at the time of the surgery, the latent injury extension did not apply due to the patient's actual discovery within two years, and the continuing course of treatment doctrine was inapplicable because there was no evidence the nerve damage could have been remedied by further action from the defendant.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

In State v. Euceda-Valle, the defendant was convicted after a traffic stop on Interstate 85 led to the discovery of nearly 5 kilograms of cocaine in the trunk of the car he was driving, resulting in charges of trafficking in cocaine by transportation over 400 grams, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and intentionally maintaining a vehicle for keeping controlled substances. On appeal, the court held that the defendant's challenge to the maintaining-a-vehicle conviction was waived because he presented a different legal theory at trial than on appeal. The court also reversed the conspiracy conviction, finding insufficient evidence of an agreement between the defendant and his passenger, as the record showed only their joint presence in the vehicle, nervousness, and the smell of air freshener, without additional indicators like conversations, cash, or weapons. The trafficking conviction was affirmed with no error found.

criminal lawprocedure

Antonio Cousart was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor larceny and contributing to the delinquency of a minor based on evidence that he and his juvenile brother were found near a vehicle from which stereo equipment had been stolen. The court upheld the convictions, holding that the jury was not required to unanimously agree on which specific act by the minor (such as driving without a license or theft) established the delinquency element, because the offense under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-316.1 focuses on causing or encouraging a condition of delinquency rather than a particular act. The court also found sufficient evidence supported the larceny conviction and that the restitution amount of $787 was supported by testimony. However, the court reversed the 24-month probation terms because they exceeded the statutory maximum of 18 months for misdemeanants without the required findings under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343.2(d), and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a defendant convicted of sex offenses who was required to register as a sex offender; after his post-release supervision was revoked in 2004 for leaving his residence without notice and failing to complete treatment, he was indicted under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11 for failing to register a change of address. The trial court dismissed the indictment, finding that the prosecution would place the defendant in double jeopardy by punishing him twice for the same conduct that led to his reincarceration. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that double jeopardy protections under the U.S. and North Carolina Constitutions do not apply to parole revocation proceedings because they are not criminal prosecutions, and the Blockburger same-elements test therefore does not bar the subsequent indictment even if the underlying facts overlap. A dissent argued that the unchallenged findings showed the same elements were used for both the revocation and the indictment, violating double jeopardy.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a father appealing the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, J.I.K., who was born while the father was incarcerated on burglary charges. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order terminating the father's rights, finding that he had failed to establish paternity through any of the statutory methods, including filing an affidavit with the Department of Health and Human Services or providing substantial support to the child and mother. The court reasoned that the father's incarceration did not excuse his failure to legitimate the child, as he had the ability to correspond and file necessary documents from prison, and his lack of knowledge of the legal requirements was not a valid defense.

family law

In this case, plaintiff Evangelistic Outreach Center, a North Carolina nonprofit, sued defendant General Steel Corporation, a Colorado company, for fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and breach of contract arising from a 2004 agreement to purchase a prefabricated steel building. Defendant moved to compel arbitration, stay proceedings, and dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the trial court denied the motions. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that defendant waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction by failing to raise it under Rule 12(b)(2) alongside its subject matter jurisdiction motion, as required by Rule 12(g) and (h). The court further held that competent evidence supported the trial court's finding of no enforceable arbitration agreement, as plaintiff denied receiving the arbitration clause on the back of the purchase order and defendant produced no proof to the contrary.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved the North Carolina Court of Appeals reviewing orders terminating the parental rights of a mother and father to their children C.D.L-H and C.L.O.L-H, based on allegations of neglect. The trial court had found that the mother, who was a minor in DSS custody at the time of the first child's birth, repeatedly disrupted placements due to behavioral issues, failed to complete education or therapy, accumulated criminal charges, and did not maintain stability or comply with case plans for reunification; the father similarly failed to secure housing or employment, complete required assessments, or visit the child consistently. The appellate court affirmed the terminations in part, holding that the findings supported conclusions of neglect and that termination was in the children's best interests, while remanding on other issues. The reasoning centered on evidence of prior neglect and the high probability of repetition if the children were returned, including the parents' inability to provide stable care or follow through on DSS requirements.

family law

This case involved the Surry County Department of Social Services petitioning to terminate a father's parental rights in his infant daughter after the child and her half-siblings were removed from the home due to serious injuries to one sibling, leading to the father's Alford plea to felony child abuse. The trial court terminated the father's rights on grounds including neglect, failure to make reasonable progress on a case plan, dependency, and conviction of a felony assault on another child in the home. On appeal, the father argued that procedural violations—such as filing the petition 67 days after the permanency planning hearing, holding the hearing beyond 90 days, and delays in entering the order—deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the violations were not per se prejudicial, that jurisdiction existed because the custody order was properly incorporated by reference in the record, and that the father's other claims lacked merit.

family lawprocedure