Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing in part and vacating in part Defendant's convictions for insufficient evidence, holding that the court of appeals erred.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of violating a civil domestic violence protective order while in possession of a deadly weapon, felonious breaking or entering, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault on a female. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's convictions for violation of a protective order and felonious breaking or entering for insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred. View "State v. Tucker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, felonious speeding to elude arrest, and robbery with a dangerous weapon, holding that Defendant was disqualified from claiming the justification of self-defense.At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Defendant could not claim self-defense to justify his use of deadly force because he was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court held (1) N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-51.4, the stand your ground law, requires the State to prove an immediate causal nexus between a defendant's attempt to commit, commission of, or escape after the commission of the felony and the circumstances giving rise to the defendant's perceived need to use force; (2) because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on this causal nexus requirement, the jury instructions were erroneous, but the error was not prejudicial; and (3) under section 14-51.4(1), Defendant was disqualified from claiming the justification of self-defense. View "State v. McLymore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court concluding that Defendant had committed the revocable probation violation of absconding, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Defendant's probation upon concluding that Defendant had absconded his probation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the probation violation reports sufficiently alleged that Defendant absconded supervision; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to revoke Defendant's probation and to activate his suspended sentences upon Defendant admitting that he committed the revocable violation of absconding probation. View "State v. Crompton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals upholding Defendant's conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child, holding that the case must be remanded for a new trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in allowing the State's expert to testify that the minor child in this case was sexually abused in the absence of physical evidence confirming her opinion, that the State's expert identifying Defendant as the perpetrator of the charged offense constituted plain error, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) permitting testimony that the minor child was sexually assaulted in the absence of definitive physical evidence constituted plain error; (2) the trial court committed plain error in permitting testimony as to the medical recommendations identifying Defendant as the perpetrator; and (3) the court of appeals did not err in dismissing Defendant's IAC claim without prejudice. View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, holding that the prosecutor's exclusion of an African-American potential juror constituted a substantive violation of Defendant's constitutional right to equal protection under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).After the court of appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, Defendant filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court, asserting that the case presented a substantial constitutional question under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and N.C. Const. art. I, 19. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of Defendant's Batson challenge in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. 488 (2016). On remand, the Supreme Court again ordered that Defendant's Batson objections be overruled. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State committed a substantive violation of Defendant's constitutional right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. View "State v. Clegg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the ruling of the court of appeals finding no prejudicial error in the criminal proceedings resulting in Defendant's conviction for second-degree forcible rape and first-degree kidnapping, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below. On appeal, Defendant alleged several trial court errors, including the two errors at issue on appeal. The court of appeals affirmed, thus rejecting each of Defendant's arguments. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the court of appeals, holding that, assuming without deciding that the trial court's admission of certain testimony violated Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause and that other testimony violated N.C. R. Evid. 404(b), the assumed errors were not prejudicial. View "State v. Pabon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule but vacated the trial court's judgment as to Defendant's conviction of robbery with a dangerous weapon, holding that the trial court committed error in denying Defendant's motion to continue.Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule with assault with a firearm on a government official as the underlying felony. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed constitutional error when it denied his motion to continue based on the State's disclosure on the evening of trial that it planned to use certain phone calls out of more than 800 recorded calls made by Defendant from jail. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court committed constitutional error by denying hte motion to continue, but the error was harmless as to Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule where the underlying felony was a general intent crime; and (2) a new trial is ordered as to Defendant's robbery with a dangerous weapon conviction. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals that vacated Defendant's conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of a judgment of acquittal, holding that remand was required for a new trial.Defendant was convicted of "knowingly and willfully" threatening to kill a court officer. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant's conviction violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. At issue on appeal was whether the First Amendment protected Defendant from being convicted for publishing messages contained in his Facebook posts. The Supreme Court held that Defendant's messages were shielded by the First Amendment and that, because there remained questions for a properly instructed jury, the matter must be remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's motion to dismiss the charges against him based for vindictive prosecution and failure to join, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that the presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness was warranted and in holding that the trial court should have dismissed the charges under State v. Warren, 313 N.C. 254 (1985).Defendant was charged with fourteen counts of felony child abuse. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the charges amounted to vindictive prosecution and that the State impermissibly failed to join the charges in an earlier prosecution. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed based on prosecutorial vindictiveness and failure to join. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) no presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness was warranted; and (2) the court of appeals erred in finding a joinder violation. View "State v. Schalow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that Mother could not prevail on her ineffective assistance of counsel claim.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (6). The trial court then concluded that it would be in the child's best interest for Mother's parental rights to be terminated. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court failed to ensure that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother failed to demonstrate that, but for the alleged deficiency by counsel, there was a reasonable probability of a different result. View "In re Z.M.T." on Justia Law