Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of committing a misdemeanor sexual battery. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court committed plain error by admitting testimony referring to Defendant's post-Miranda exercise of his right to remain silent. The court of appeals (1) affirmed the trial court's determination of guilt, concluding that the admission of the statements was not plain error; but (2) vacated the trial court's order requiring that Defendant register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the admission of the post-Miranda testimony was error; but (2) this error did not amount to plain error.

Defendant was indicted for first degree rape. Four years later, he was indicted for additional charges of felony child abuse by committing a sexual act on a child, incest, and indecent liberties with a child. The victim in this case was Defendant's daughter, who experienced a "flashback" to the alleged events and reported the allegedly repressed memory to her therapist. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to suppress expert testimony regarding the repressed memory, concluding that even though evidence of repressed memory was relevant, the evidence must be excluded because its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals' determination that the trial court properly granted Defendant's motion; but (2) disavowed the portion of the opinion that, relying on an earlier opinion of that court, required expert testimony always to accompany the testimony of a lay witness in cases involving allegedly recovered memories. Remanded.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon and trafficking in cocaine by possession. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. Defendant contended that the State's evidence was insufficient to support the charges and therefore the charges should not have been submitted to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to reach a reasonable inference that Defendant constructively possessed the cocaine and rifle at issue, and therefore, the motion to dismiss was properly denied.

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of indecent liberties with a child and first-degree sexual offense. At issue on appeal was whether evidence of prior acts was properly admitted against Defendant under N.C. R. Evid. 404(b). The court of appeals reversed the convictions, determining that the evidence was not sufficiently similar to the alleged crimes to be admitted under Rule 404(b). The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, concluding that the trial court, after carefully evaluating the evidence, correctly ruled that the prior acts had sufficient similarity and temporal proximity to those alleged in the charged crimes. Remanded.

The driver and passenger of an automobile were killed when the condition of a state-maintained road caused the vehicle to veer off the roadway. The driver lost control of the car and struck an oncoming automobile head-on. Plaintiffs, the estates of the decedents, sued DOT for negligence under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA). The Industrial Commission determined that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the public duty doctrine and granted DOT's motion to dismiss. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the public duty doctrine did not bar Plaintiffs' claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the limitation placed on the use of the public duty doctrine by the General Assembly's 2008 amendment to the STCA applied in this case; and (2) consequently, the doctrine did not bar Plaintiffs' claims.

Defendant Paul Lewis was convicted of first-degree sexual offense, felonious breaking or entering, and robbery with a dangerous weapon. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Defendant discovered information previously unknown to him relating to his trial. Defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief (MAR), alleging that his trial had been tainted because of improper communication between the investigating detective and a juror. The trial court denied Defendant's MAR, but the court of appeals reversed and ordered a new trial. On retrial, Defendant was once more convicted of all charges. The court of appeals again reversed Defendant's convictions and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the charges against Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the retrial court erred in limiting Defendant's ability to examine before a jury the State's lead investigator about the investigator's possible bias and about instances of purported misconduct by the investigator during Defendant's first trial. Remanded for a new trial.

Defendant was charged with resisting a public officer, felony possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and attaining habitual felon status. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the resisting charge and a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the search incident to arrest. At a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the motions, the trial court granted both of Defendant's motions. Immediately thereafter, the State announced to the court that it would be unable to proceed with the case in chief on the remaining charges. As a result, the other charges were dismissed. The State appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that the prosecutor's statements to the trial court amounted to a dismissal in open court under N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-931. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals to the extent it could be read as affirming to the trial court's dismissal of charges on its own motion, holding (1) the prosecutor's statements did not amount to a dismissal in open court, and (2) the trial court had no authority to enter an order dismissing the case on its own motion. Remanded for consideration of the State's argument pertaining to the motion to suppress.

On July 29, 1994, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. The date of the offense was August 25, 1993. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). The General Assembly enacted the Structured Sentencing Act (SSA) to supercede the FSA for offenses committed on or after the SSA's effective date, October 1, 1994. In contrast to the FSA, the SSA imposed shorter terms of imprisonment for second-degree murder. On March 28, 2011, Defendant filed an amended motion for appropriate relief requesting modification of his sentence under the SSA. The superior court ordered that Defendant's life sentence be modified to a term of 157 to 198 months under the SSA. The Supreme Court vacated the order and judgment of the trial court, holding (1) Defendant's offense was controlled exclusively by the FSA; and (2) the superior court violated a clear and unambiguous statute by modifying Defendant's sentence in accordance with the SSA. Remanded.

Defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual offense and crime against nature based on the victim's age and inability to consent due to a mental disability. The court of appeals reversed and vacated Defendant's convictions, holding that expert testimony was necessary to establish whether the victim had the requisite mental capacity to consent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the State was not required to use expert testimony pursuant to N.C. R. Evid. 702 to establish the extent of the victim's mental capacity to consent to sexual acts under the circumstances of this case; and (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to withstand Defendant's motions to dismiss.

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for trafficking in cocaine by possession, trafficking in cocaine by transportation, possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, and carrying a concealed gun. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle during a search that was conducted only after officers had arrested him for carrying a concealed gun and placed him in a police car. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that it was not reasonable for the arresting officers to believe Defendant's vehicle contained evidence of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals with instructions to reinstate the trial court's decision, holding that the search of Defendant's vehicle was constitutionally permissible under Arizona v. Gant, and the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion for relief.