Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of trafficking in opium by possession. During the trial, a laboratory report of the results of a chemical analysis of the contraband were admitted, over Defendant’s objection, without calling the testing chemist as a witness. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the State failed to establish that Defendant waived his confrontation rights because the record did not demonstrate that the State had provided a pretrial copy of the lab report to Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Defendant failed properly to raise or preserve the issue regarding the State’s compliance with the statutory requirement that the State provide a copy of the lab report to a defendant before trial. Remanded. View "State v. Whittington" on Justia Law

Greensboro police officers recovered a firearm ten to twelve feet from a car in which Defendant, a convicted felon, was a passenger. Defendant was arrested and later confessed that the firearm belonged to him. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a felon. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon because, pursuant to the corpus delicti rule, the State did not present corroborative evidence, independent of Defendant's confession, tending to show that the crime in question occurred. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the State v. Parker articulation of the corpus delicti rule, the State was not required to submit alternative evidence proving Defendant's identity as the perpetrator beyond Defendant's confession, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient for the State to survive Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. View "State v. Cox" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought a judicial determination that the 2011 legislative changes made to North Carolina's pre-kindergarten program failed to comply with the state's constitutional obligations recognized in Leandro v. State and Hoke County Board of Education v. State. After a hearing, the trial court found that some of the changes violated the State Constitution and mandating that the State not deny any eligible at-risk four-year-old admission to the North Carolina pre-kindergarten program. While the State's appeal was pending, the General Assembly amended the challenged statutory provisions. The court of appeals subsequently affirmed the trial court in part and dismissed the appeal in part. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal as moot because the 2012 amendments constituted material and substantial changes to the provisions that the trial court found unconstitutional, and thus the questions originally in controversy between the parties were no longer at issue. View "Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, and Defendant thereafter admitted his habitual felon status. Defendant appealed, arguing that the admission of testimony by an expert in forensic chemistry regarding the results of a chemical analysis performed by another chemist violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The court of appeals reversed and granted Defendant a new trial, concluding that the admission of the testimony was error. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that even if admission of the testimony was error, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the testimony of an expert in forensic science as to her opinion that the substance found in Defendant's vehicle was cocaine based upon her independent analysis of testing performed by another analyst in her laboratory violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him was not violated in this case, where (1) the admission of the expert's opinion, from the expert's own analysis of the data, constituted the substantive evidence being prevented against Defendant, and Defendant was able to cross-examine the expert concerning all aspects of her testimony; and (2) even assuming the admission of the expert's opinion violated Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause, the error was harmless. View "State v. Ortiz-Zape" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of several drug-related counts. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's convictions for two counts of conspiracy to sell or deliver cocaine and one count of sale or delivery of cocaine, holding that the trial court violated Defendant's Confrontation Clause rights by admitting into evidence lab reports through the testimony of a substitute analyst. The Supreme Court agreed that there was a Confrontation Clause violation where the testifying analyst did not give her own independent opinion, but rather gave "surrogate testimony" reciting the testing analysts' opinions. The Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals' decision that Defendant was entitled to a new trial for the sale or delivery charge; but (2) reversed the court of appeals' decision vacating Defendant's conspiracy convictions, as those convictions were not affected by the erroneous admission of the substitute analyst's testimony. View "State v. Craven" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine. The court of appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, concluding that Defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the trial court permitted a State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) special agent to testify that the substance found on Defendant was cocaine based solely on her supervisor's notes and lab report. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated where (1) the SBI agent presented an independent opinion formed as a result of her own analysis, not surrogate testimony; (2) Defendant was able to conduct a cross-examination that exposed the weaknesses in the agent's testimony; and (3) the supervisor's lab notes were not admitted into evidence. View "State v. Brewington" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine and attaining a habitual felon status. The court of appeals reversed and awarded Defendant a new trial, holding that the testimony of a forensic scientist who stated her expert opinion that a substance was cocaine based upon her independent analysis of testing performed by another analyst in her labor violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant failed to preserve for appeal the issues he raised before the Court; and (2) even if Defendant had timely objected to the testimony at trial, he would not be entitled to a new trial because the trial court did not err in admitting the expert's opinion that the substance was cocaine, as the testimony did not violate Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. View "State v. Brent" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for appropriate relief based upon newly discovered evidence, alleging that, after the trial, Defendant's father told a probation officer that the contraband belonged to him. The trial court set aside Defendant's convicted and ordered a new trial, concluding that the father's post-trial statement constituted newly discovered evidence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that due diligence was used to procure the father's testimony at the trial, and the information implicating the father was available to Defendant before his conviction. Therefore, the trial court erred in concluding Defendant had newly discovered evidence. View "State v. Rhodes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sold a parcel of land adjacent to a golf club to New South Properties (New South) for development as a residential community. New South hired Hunter Construction Group (Hunter) to prepare the parcel for construction. Hunter built erosion control structures and devices, including a silt collection basin. However, a dam Hunter constructed to form the silt collection basin ruptured, causing mud, water, and debris to flood the golf course. As a result of the damage to the golf course, Plaintiffs filed an action against New South, Apple Creek and Hunter, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass, and violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA). The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the SPCA claim. Plaintiffs appealed and withdrew their appeal against all defendants except Hunter. The court of appeals affirmed. Without considering the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that because Hunter was never cited for a violation for section 113A-66 of the SPCA, Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a civil action against Hunter pursuant to section 113A-66. View "Applewood Props., LLC v. New S. Props., LLC" on Justia Law