Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court dismissing Defendant's motion for appropriate relief (MAR) in which Defendant asserted claims under the Racial Justice Act (RJA), holding that the retroactive application of the 2012 amended RJA and the 2013 repeal of the RJA violates the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws.The trial court dismissed Defendant's MAR, concluding that it was voided by the repeal of the RJA. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for the reinstatement of Defendant's sentence of life imprisonment without parole, holding (1) the retroactivity provision of the RJA repeal violated the double jeopardy protections of the North Carolina Constitution; (2) the judgment sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was a final judgment, and therefore, double jeopardy barred further review; and (3) the retroactive application of the RJA repeal violates the prohibitions against ex post facto laws contained in the state and federal constitutions. View "State v. Augustine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the retroactivity provision of the Racial Justice Act (RJA) Repeal violated the double jeopardy protections of the North Carolina Constitution.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the RJA, Defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief pursuant to the RJA. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that race was a significant factor in the decisions of prosecutors to exercise peremptory challenges to strike African-American jurors and resentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. After three more defendants showed that their death sentences were sought or imposed on the basis of race the General Assembly repealed the RJA. The trial court concluded that the RJA Repeal retroactively voided the defendants' claims and dismissed each of the defendants' motions for appropriate relief. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order, holding that the retroactivity provision of the RJA Repeal violates double jeopardy protections and that, in any event, the State lacked the statutory authority to appeal that judgment. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming superior court judgments denying Defendant's Batson motion, holding that Defendant presented a sufficient record to permit meaningful appellate review of Defendant's Batson challenge and that Defendant established the existence of a prima facie case of discrimination necessary to require the performance of a complete Batson analysis.The trial court allowed Defendant to make a Batson motion but subsequently denied the motion, finding that there was no prima facie showing justifying the Batson challenge. The court of appeals also rejected Defendant's Batson claim, stating that, "[a]ssuming, arguendo, that defendant's argument is properly before us, we find no error in the ruling of the trial court and affirm." The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings in the superior court, holding (1) the record was sufficient to permit appellate review of the merits of Defendant's Batson claim; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to find the existence of a prima facie showing of racial discrimination. View "State v. Bennett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant, holding that the warrant supported by probable cause.Defendant pled guilty to the offense of trafficking in cocaine while preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the facts contained in the affidavit were insufficient to establish probable cause to search his residence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the affidavit contained facts that were sufficient to provide a nexus between the residence and suspected criminal activity, and therefore, the warrant was supported by probable cause. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court clearly erred in ruling that Defendant failed to prove purposeful discrimination with respect to the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike three jurors without considering all of the evidence presented by Defendant.Defendant was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder and other crimes. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to grant three objections that he made under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in its analysis of Defendant's Batson claims with respect to the three jurors; and (2) as to all three jurors, remand was required for reconsideration of whether Defendant proved purposeful discrimination in each case. View "State v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, holding that there was no reasonable suspicion to justify the law enforcement officer's stop when Defendant signaled with his middle finger from the passenger side window of a moving vehicle.While assisting a stranded motorist, the officer turned his attention to another car traveling on the roadway, a white SUV. Defendant had his arm outside the passenger window and gestured with his middle finger, making an up-and-down motion. Believing that Defendant was committing the crime of disorderly conduct, the officer pursued and then stopped the SUV. At trial, Defendant moved to suppress the officer's testimony, arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant pleaded guilty to resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the specific, articulable facts did not establish reasonable suspicion of the crime of disorderly conduct. View "State v. Ellis" on Justia Law

In this business case, the Supreme Court reversed the orders of the business court denying Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment based on its finding that Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy their burden of proving that the court possessed personal jurisdiction over Defendant, a nonresident company, holding that Defendant's contacts with North Carolina were sufficient to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it in North Carolina state courts.In the complaint, Plaintiffs sought an injunction, in part, directing Defendant to turn over certain documents and information necessary for Plaintiffs to wind up the affairs of a limited-liability limited partnership. A default was entered against Defendant, but the business court denied Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with this state such that a North Carolina court could constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over it. View "Beem USA Limited-Liability Limited Partnership v. Grax Consulting LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that the trial court failed to satisfy the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1242 before allowing Defendant to proceed pro se, holding that the court of appeals correctly concluded that Defendant did not forfeit his right to counsel and that the trial court was therefore required to ensure that his waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.Defendant was charged with offenses related to his failure to maintain a valid driver's license. Defendant was first tried in the district court, where he was convicted. Defendant appealed to the superior court, where he was tried without counsel and convicted by a jury. On appeal, a majority of the court of appeals determined that Defendant did not engage in such serious misconduct as to warrant forfeiture of the right to counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial because the trial court violated his right to counsel under the federal and state Constitutions. View "State v. Simpkins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the superior court's judgment following Defendant's plea of guilty to trafficking in cocaine, holding that the court of appeals correctly determined that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence discovered pursuant to an unlawful traffic stop.In his appeal, Defendant argued that his initial investigatory detention was not properly tailored to address a speeding violation and contended that the officer seized him without consent or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Therefore, Defendant argued, the officer unlawfully seized items from the vehicle during the ensuing search of the car and that those objects were the fruit of the poisonous tree. The court of appeals reversed the denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle after the traffic stop had been completed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was obtained as a result of the officer's unlawful detainment of Defendant without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity after the lawful duration of the traffic stop had concluded. View "State v. Reed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the court of appeals properly found that the identification procedures at issue in this case were impermissibly suggestive, but the identification procedures ultimately did not violate Defendant's statutory or due process rights.After a trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress the testimony of two eyewitnesses, including their in-court identifications of Defendant as the perpetrator of the crimes. The court of appeals remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the eyewitness testimony was the result of impermissibly suggestive identification procedures and that the testimony was prejudicial. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals properly found that the eyewitnesses were subjected to witness identification procedures that were impermissibly suggestive but erred in failing to rule that the identification was sufficiently of independent origin to negate a substantial likelihood of a misidentification. View "State v. Malone" on Justia Law