Judge, Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Mosteller v. Stiltner
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-07-03 · cited 2×
In Mosteller v. Stiltner, plaintiff Nicole Mosteller sued defendant Gary Stiltner for child custody and support of their minor daughter, and Stiltner filed a counterclaim seeking the same relief. During the case, Mosteller served a subpoena on appellant Susan Indenbaum, a licensed clinical social worker who had provided therapy to Stiltner, seeking her deposition testimony and all treatment records. Indenbaum moved for a protective order and to quash the subpoena, citing the social worker-patient privilege under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.7, but the trial court denied the motions and ordered compliance. Indenbaum appealed, but the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that she lacked standing because the privilege belongs exclusively to the patient, who must assert it, and the record showed that Stiltner had neither objected to the disclosure nor appealed the order. The court reasoned that the social worker privilege operates identically to the physician-patient privilege, which is strictly construed, belongs solely to the patient, and may be waived by the patient’s failure to object.
family lawprocedure
State v. Sharpless
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-06-05 · cited 3×
In State v. Sharpless, defendant Andre Sharpless was convicted of felony first-degree murder, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, first-degree burglary, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury after a November 2009 home invasion in Wilmington in which victim Tarell Phillips was fatally shot and his friend Kamala Dowd was wounded. The trial court sentenced Sharpless to life without parole on the murder count plus consecutive terms on the other offenses. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the substance of an anonymous hearsay telephone tip—describing Sharpless as part of a trio committing a narcotics robbery—after the defense had cross-examined officers about the initial police description and lack of suspicion. Although the court recognized that the defendant may have opened the door to limited rebuttal evidence showing why police focused on him, it concluded that the State went too far by introducing the prejudicial details of the tip for their truth, creating a substantial likelihood that the jury would have reached a different verdict without that evidence.
criminal lawprocedure
Fisher v. Town of Nags Head
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-05-15 · cited 9×
In Fisher v. Town of Nags Head, oceanfront property owners sued the Town after it sent them a notice offering a voluntary easement for a one-time beach nourishment project and stating it would pursue eminent domain under Chapter 40A if they refused, claiming the proposed easement was overbroad, the notice was statutorily deficient, just compensation was not offered, and the Town lacked authority under the public trust doctrine. The trial court granted the Town’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the notice satisfied N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-40 and caused no prejudice, that the Town’s estimate of zero compensation did not violate the constitution because project benefits could offset any taking with disputes reserved for the condemnation hearing, and that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 40A-3(b1)(10) expressly authorizes municipalities to exercise eminent domain for beach erosion control regardless of public trust arguments.
propertyprocedureenvironment
State v. Fowler
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-05-01 · cited 7×
In State v. Fowler, defendant Tavaris Lamont Fowler was stopped for speeding, arrested for driving with a revoked license after a traffic stop, and subjected to searches of his vehicle and person that uncovered marijuana and crack cocaine hidden in his underwear; he moved to suppress the cocaine evidence, arguing the searches amounted to an unconstitutional strip search lacking probable cause and exigent circumstances under precedents like State v. Battle. The trial court denied the motion, and Fowler pled guilty to felony cocaine possession while reserving his right to appeal. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the searches were reasonable because officers had probable cause from a corroborated confidential informant tip and marijuana in the vehicle, exigent circumstances were supported by the record, and the searches occurred discreetly at night in a shielded location away from public view rather than roadside.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Appeal of David H. Murdock Research Institute
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-05-01
The case concerned Cabarrus County’s appeal of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission’s ruling that reversed the local Board’s denial of DHMRI’s late 2008 application for a property tax exemption on its research facility and denied the County’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the PTC’s decision. It held that the PTC acted within its authority by addressing both the motion and the merits at the same hearing, that the Board’s denial of the late application was arbitrary and capricious because DHMRI qualified for the exemption, the County had long known of its nonprofit status, and the Board had approved other untimely applications that year, and that the record supported granting the exemption without need for further proceedings.
propertytaxesprocedure
State v. Foye
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012-04-17 · cited 13×
In State v. Foye, defendant Robin Livice Foye was convicted of driving while intoxicated and driving while license revoked after police found his damaged car in a ditch, observed his injuries and high blood-alcohol level, and obtained his admission that he had driven following an incident at a club. Foye appealed, arguing that the State failed to prove he was the driver and that the trial court’s supplemental instruction on reasonable doubt coerced the jury. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the corpus delicti was established by corroborative evidence including bloodstains in the vehicle, defendant’s injuries matching the steering wheel, his inconsistent statements, and a .18 BAC. The court further held that the reasonable-doubt instruction did not constitute plain error, as it did not alter the burden of proof or coerce a verdict when viewed in the context of the entire proceedings and additional evidence requested by the jury.
criminal lawprocedure