John C. Martin

In State v. Yancey, the defendant appealed from his no-contest plea to three counts of breaking or entering, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements and physical evidence obtained during two police encounters on the grounds that they violated his Miranda rights and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the defendant was not in custody during the November 2009 interview with detectives because, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have felt restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest, even though he was a juvenile and a suspect. The court further concluded that the initial October 2009 encounter with an officer was consensual, that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his backpack, and that no Miranda warnings were required in either situation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a defendant convicted of drug-related charges after police seized crack cocaine from his jacket during a search incident to arrest, with the State introducing an SBI lab report identifying the substance as cocaine. On remand from the North Carolina Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals held that the lab report was admissible without the analyst's testimony under N.C.G.S. § 90-95(g) because the State provided timely notice to defense counsel and the defendant filed no objection. The court further ruled that the search of the jacket was lawful under the circumstances, as the defendant's actions in reaching into his jacket during the arrest created a reasonable belief he might be armed, and thus counsel's failure to move to suppress the evidence did not constitute ineffective assistance. The court concluded there was no prejudicial error in admitting the officer's testimony or the report and overruled the remaining claims.

criminal lawprocedure

In Eaton v. Campbell, plaintiffs Leslie Eaton and Danita Eaton sued defendants Jerry Campbell, Sr. and Karen S. Campbell, alleging claims including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, actual and constructive fraud, conversion, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Following a bench trial, the trial court found the defendants liable on multiple grounds, determined plaintiffs' damages at $40,532, and awarded treble damages of $121,596 plus interest and attorney's fees based on the unfair and deceptive acts. Defendants appealed, questioning the law applied but without identifying specific errors or citing supporting legal authority in their brief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by the record and that the appellants' inadequate briefing provided no basis to disturb the outcome.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant James Emmett Long, Jr., who in 2010 pled guilty to multiple felonies including breaking and entering and larceny, received suspended sentences, and was placed on probation conditioned on completing a two-year residential substance abuse program. After being discharged from the program, his probation officer reported violations, leading the trial court in 2011 to revoke probation and activate the sentences following defendant's admission of the violations. Defendant sought review via a petition for writ of certiorari after missing the deadline for direct appeal of the revocation, but on appeal he challenged only the validity of the original 2010 judgments due to alleged defects in the charging process. The court granted certiorari to review the revocation but dismissed the appeal, holding that challenges to the original judgments constitute impermissible collateral attacks when raised for the first time in an appeal from a probation revocation order, as defendants must timely appeal the initial judgments directly.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a North Carolina company's challenge to the enforcement of a 2011 Illinois default judgment for $104,040 arising from the sale of latex gloves. The defendant had declined to appear in Illinois, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, and later moved in North Carolina superior court for relief from the foreign judgment under N.C.G.S. §§ 1C-1701 through 1C-1705. The trial court denied the motion and enforced the judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that an authenticated copy of the Illinois judgment established a presumption of full faith and credit and jurisdiction that the defendant failed to rebut with specific evidence, and that written findings of fact were not required for enforcement.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs who alleged losses from investments made through various financial entities, claiming their signatures on IRA account documents and investment authorization forms were forged and seeking damages under claims including securities fraud, common law fraud, conversion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and gross negligence. The successor defendants to the Fiserv entities moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on arbitration clauses in the IRA contracts and investment forms, which the trial court denied after finding insufficient evidence to overcome the forgery allegations or establish ratification or equitable estoppel. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs' claims were dependent on duties and transactions arising from the contracts containing the arbitration provisions, making the plaintiffs bound by those clauses regardless of whether the signatures were forged. The decision rested on principles of equitable estoppel, as the complaint's allegations and requested relief were grounded in the existence of the account agreements rather than independent tort duties.

business & regulatoryprocedure