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

The case involved defendant Arthur Junior Cook's appeal from jury convictions for felonious breaking or entering, larceny after breaking or entering, and habitual felon status, stemming from a theft of items including a laptop, backpack, shoes, and football tickets from a federal office in Charlotte. The court found no error in the trial or convictions, which were supported by surveillance video, items recovered from the defendant, witness identifications, and his statements admitting to multiple burglaries. However, the court remanded for resentencing because the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of the defendant's prior convictions needed to reach a prior record level VI with 23 points, as only certified records for a few out-of-state and in-state felonies were presented while defense counsel declined to stipulate. The trial court did not specify which of the 37 listed prior offenses formed the basis for the point total.

criminal lawprocedure

In Carr v. Department of Health & Human Services, a licensed practical nurse filed a workers' compensation claim after being struck from behind by a patient in a wheelchair at work, injuring her left hand and later claiming related neck pain requiring surgery. The North Carolina Industrial Commission awarded temporary total disability compensation and medical expenses for both injuries, concluding the neck condition was causally related to the incident based on medical testimony and a presumption from the employer's acceptance of the hand injury claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the compensability ruling for the neck injury, citing sufficient evidence that the work event caused or aggravated the cervical condition. The court remanded the disability award for further findings on whether the employee satisfied the Russell standards for proving inability to earn wages, as the existing findings addressed only one method of proof and omitted analysis of others.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved High Rock Lake Partners' challenge to conditions imposed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) on a driveway permit needed for a proposed 60-lot residential subdivision. The permit conditions required the developer to widen a nearby railroad crossing on SR 1135, obtain approvals from the railroad owners and operators (NCRR and NS), and bear all costs, after the railroads rejected a non-grade-separated widening plan. The superior court and appeals committee upheld the conditions, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that DOT's actions under its statutory authority did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of power to private parties because the railroads held independent property rights over the crossing and the conditions addressed public safety concerns from increased traffic. The court also affirmed denial of the motion to supplement the administrative record with deposition transcripts, as they were not necessary to resolve the issues.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over lien priority on real property after an original 2006 deed from the McKee Trust to Hillsborough mistakenly conveyed only a one-half interest due to a scrivener's error, which was later corrected by a recorded deed in 2007; plaintiff subcontractor S.T. Wooten performed site work under contract with Front Street, filed a lien in 2009 after nonpayment, and argued its lien had priority over Colonial Bank's deed of trust at least as to the omitted half-interest, while the bank counterclaimed for reformation and declaratory relief on superiority. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank, reforming the deed and holding its deed of trust superior to the lien. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mutual mistake created a constructive trust allowing equitable reformation outside registration statutes, that plaintiff was not entitled to bona fide purchaser protection because it did not prove payment of new consideration without notice, and that any alleged bank misconduct was collateral to the reformation transaction so the unclean hands doctrine did not apply.

property

This case involves the termination of a mother's parental rights to her two children after Chatham County DSS took custody following a 2007 police raid that uncovered large quantities of cocaine, cash, and firearms in the family home, leading to the mother's arrest on drug charges. The trial court adjudicated the older child as neglected and the younger child (born while the mother was incarcerated) as dependent, later terminating parental rights on grounds including neglect under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and dependency. On appeal, the mother challenged the sufficiency of evidence for neglect findings and the likelihood of repetition of neglect, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the orders, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of impairment and risk to the children and that those findings supported the legal conclusions.

family law

The case involved Terry A. Fox, who was convicted after a jury trial of willfully failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements under N.C.G.S. § 14-208.9 by not notifying the sheriff of a change of address within three days. Defendant had been required to register following a 1996 second-degree rape conviction and had previously acknowledged his duties, including address-change notifications, but evidence showed he moved into an apartment in Morehead City without updating his registration from his prior address. The trial court denied motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to the State and that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit. The court held there was no error in the conviction or sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Shaun Marso, who shipped a diamond ring via UPS Next Day Air COD service for $12,145, after being assured by UPS staff that cash would be collected and guaranteed before release of the package. UPS instead accepted a fraudulent cashier's check, which was later deemed worthless, leading Marso to sue UPS in state court for breach of contract under federal common law applicable to interstate air carriers. The trial court granted summary judgment to UPS and denied Marso's cross-motion, but the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the parties had contracted to limit UPS's liability under its tariff and that summary judgment was therefore improper.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Burgess, the defendant was charged with multiple serious offenses including first-degree rape and kidnapping but entered a no-contest plea to second-degree kidnapping and crime against nature under an agreement that consolidated the charges and set a mitigated sentence range; the trial court also ordered sex-offender registration and calculated the defendant's prior record level as IV based partly on out-of-state convictions. The Court of Appeals held that neither conviction qualifies as a "sexually violent offense" under N.C.G.S. § 14-208.6(5), so the registration order was erroneous and must be vacated. The court further held that the State failed to prove the out-of-state offenses were substantially similar to North Carolina offenses as required by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.14(e), rendering the prior-record-level determination invalid even though the defendant had stipulated to it in the plea agreement. Accordingly, the case was remanded for resentencing with the opportunity for both parties to present additional evidence on the prior convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Wilson v. Wilson involved a dispute between divorced parents over the interpretation and enforcement of a child support agreement incorporated into their 1988 divorce judgment, specifically provisions for automatic increases based on the non-custodial parent's salary raises and continuation of support for college. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay over $23,000 in past due support plus fees, calculating the increases automatically. On appeal, the court held that such automatic modification clauses are unenforceable under North Carolina law because child support modifications require a showing of changed circumstances, and reversed the order for recalculation of arrearages while affirming other aspects and remanding the case.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns the 2007 property tax valuation of Blue Ridge Mall in Henderson County, North Carolina, consisting of a 24.19-acre mall parcel and a separate 5.15-acre retention pond parcel. The County assessed the property using the cost approach at over $11.6 million, while the taxpayer appealed and presented an appraisal using the income capitalization method that valued it at $7.735 million. The North Carolina Property Tax Commission determined the market value at $9,461,476, relying primarily on the income capitalization approach as the most appropriate for income-producing property under the statutory definition of true value in money. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the income approach was properly applied, supported by competent evidence including comparable sales and capitalization rates, and that the retention pond parcel was correctly valued together with the mall as it serves the entire property.

propertytaxes

In State v. Leonard, the defendant faced multiple charges including driving while impaired, felonious serious injury by motor vehicle, felonious operation of a motor vehicle to elude arrest, misdemeanor hit and run, and habitual felon status after an altercation led him to flee police in his vehicle, run a red light, and collide with another car, injuring its occupants. The trial court dismissed the assault with a deadly weapon charge but allowed the jury to convict on the other counts, later consolidating them for a sentence of 136 to 173 months as a habitual felon. On appeal, the court found no error, holding that substantial evidence supported each element of the remaining offenses and that admission of DMV license revocation documents, even if erroneous, did not constitute plain error or affect the verdict given independent proof of aggravating factors like reckless driving and injury-causing negligence. The core reasoning relied on standards for motions to dismiss and plain error review, confirming the jury had sufficient basis to elevate the eluding charge and convict overall.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved two adjoining landowners where plaintiffs built a fence at a cost of over $15,000 that a later survey and court proceeding showed was located on defendant's property. Plaintiffs offered to remove and relocate the fence to their own land at their expense (estimated at $2,000) but defendant refused access, leading plaintiffs to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, allowing them to enter defendant's property to remove and relocate the fence while requiring them to cover all costs and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that equitable remedies like injunctions are discretionary and that the relief was appropriate given the cost disparity and lack of inequity to defendant, distinguishing cited precedents on unjust enrichment.

propertyprocedure

The case involved defendant Tony Allen Herrin, who was convicted by a jury of felonious malicious use of an explosive or incendiary device under N.C.G.S. § 14-49(a) after throwing gasoline from a can onto his neighbor during a physical altercation involving shovels and rakes, then igniting it and causing burns that required hospitalization. The trial court denied motions to dismiss, entered judgment on the guilty verdict, and imposed a prison sentence of 133 to 169 months while recommending it run consecutively to any other sentence. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the conviction, any errors in jury instructions regarding the definition of incendiary material were harmless, and the consecutive-sentence recommendation was not ripe for review because no subsequent sentence had yet been imposed. The court therefore found no prejudicial error and left the judgment undisturbed.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute over the amount of child support owed by a father who was convicted of sexually abusing one of his children and subsequently lost his professional license and employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order imputing the father's pre-conviction income as a nurse anesthetist for purposes of calculating his child support obligation. The court reasoned that the father's unemployment was a foreseeable consequence of his voluntary criminal actions, which demonstrated a bad faith disregard for his support obligations, justifying the imputation of income.

family lawcriminal law