The North Carolina Supreme Court receives petitions for discretionary review throughout the year, usually from unanimous panels of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court also receives notices of appeal based on constitutional questions, which the Court tends to allow only in its discretion and not as a matter of right. The following cases are ones added by the Supreme Court in 2019 through either a petition for discretionary review or a notice of appeal based on a constitutional question.

Date Case Name Issue(s) / Holding Type(s) of Issues

State v. Dew, No. 284PA20

Opinion below: COA19-737

(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the defendant’s convictions where his felony assault convictions depend on his use of his hands and feet as deadly weapons.

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming multiple counts of assault where the defendant struck multiple blows, causing multiple injuries, in a single episode.


State v. Alexander, No. 234PA20

Opinion below: COA19-202

Did the Court of Appeals use the wrong standard to analyze materiality under the state’s DNA testing statute, when the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for testing? Criminal; DNA testing

State v. Hewitt, No. 230PA18

Opinion below: COA17-1157

(1) Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied Batson and its progeny by failing to address the comparative juror analysis and the remainder of the totality of the circumstances which demonstrated that the State’s trike of a prospective juror was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent?

(2) Whether, correctly applying Batson and its progeny, the State’s strike of a prospective juror was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent, and should therefore result in a new trial?

(3) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the defendant was not convicted “by a jury composed of less than twelve qualified jurors” where the trial court removed the foreperson for cause as a result of her conduct during the guilt phase?

Criminal; Batson challenge

Deminski v. State Board of Education, No. 06A20

Opinion below: COA18-988

(1) When a trial court denies a motion to dismiss a claim brought directly under the State Constitution to which a governmental-immunity defense does not apply, does the governmental defendant have an automatic right to an immediate appeal based on a substantial right to governmental immunity?

(2) When a public school is deliberately indifferent to sexual, physical, and emotional abuse of students under its care by other students under its care, is the school liable under the State Constitution for depriving the victim-student of her right to access a public education?

Appellate jurisdiction; right to access public education under State Constitution

State v. Parker, No. 119PA20

Opinion below: COA19-521

Whether a prosecutor’s repeated misstatement of facts to the jury during closing argument on a critical issue at trial constitutes grossly improper argument as a matter of law. Criminal; closing arguments

Griffin v. Absolute Fire Control, No. 29A20

Opinion below:  COA19-461

(1) Did the Court of Appeals commit error by creating a requirement that employees who remain employed in unsuitable jobs must apply for jobs with other employer in order to prove disability?

(2) Does a reasonable job search require looking for positions within an employee’s restrictions?

Civil; Industrial Commission; disability; job search

Raleigh Housing Authority v. Winston, No. 385PA19

Opinion below:  COA18-1155

(1) Does a reference to a provision of a lease alone satisfy a public housing authority’s obligation under federal law to “state specific grounds” for terminating the lease?

(2) Does the business records exception to the hearsay rule require consideration of how a record was made?

Civil; public housing; hearsay; business records

JVC Enterprises, LLC v. City of Concord, No. 31P20

Opinion below:


Whether the City of Concord is allowed to charge impact fees (i.e., fees for prospective water and sewer services). Municipal law; impact fees

State v. Schalow, No. 40P20

Opinion below:


(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by allowing an appeal from an interlocutory order in a criminal case to address issues other than double jeopardy.

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by concluding defendant was placed in jeopardy by a defective attempted murder indictment.

(3) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by applying a presumption of vindictiveness based on a misunderstanding of defendant’s sentencing prospects upon retrial.

(4) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by finding the Warren exception satisfied when defendant’s motion to dismiss did not allege any intent to circumvent the joinder statute.

Criminal; double jeopardy; appellate procedure

State v. Cheeks, No. 421P19

Opinion below:


(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding both that malice is not an element of first-degree murder by starvation and that the term “starving” as used in N.C.G.S. §14-17 does not require a complete deprivation of food or liquids.

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for murder by starvation when the only expert who testified on cause of death testified that the cause of death was asphyxia by manual strangulation.

(3) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding there was no fatal variance where the trial court convicted Mr. Cheeks of felony child abuse based on a different grossly negligent omission, which cause a different serious bodily injury, than what was alleged in the indictment.

Criminal; murder

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stocks, No. 296A19

Opinion below:


Did the Court of Appeals err in its application of the state of limitations to a sealed instrument? Commercial; deed of trust; statute of limitations

State v. Clegg, No. 101PA15-3

Opinion below:


Whether a defendant is entitled to relief under Batson when the state fails to articulate a race neutral justification that is supported by the record?

Whether the trial court should view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the state” when drawing inferences about the prosecutor’s intent from circumstantial evidence?

Whether the North Carolina Constitution requires a more rigorous standard of appellate review than under Batson for claims that the state struck a prospective juror on the basis of her race?

Criminal; Batson

Cooper v. Berger, No. 315PA18-2

Opinion below:


Did the General Assembly exceed its constitutional authority and interfere with the Governor’s constitutional powers when it appropriated federal funds provided in three block grants contrary to the Governor’s allocation of those funds?

Did the Court of Appeals err when it determined, as a constitutional matter, that the three federal block grants were within the “State treasury” and thus subject to the General Assembly’s control?

State Constitution; separation of powers

Cheryl Lloyd Humphrey Land Investment Company, LLC v. Resco Products, Inc., No. 326P19

Opinion below:


Whether the First Amendment’s Petition Clause shields a party from civil liability for statements made to a local government body during a public hearing regarding the safety and environmental risks associated with conducting explosive blasting 300 feet from a potential residential development.

Whether an allegation that a party “overstated” its position to a local government body during a public hearing is actionable as a fraudulent misrepresentation.

First Amendment; fraud

Crazie Overstock Promotions, LLC v. State, No. 345P19

Opinion below:


(1) Does a sweepstakes game violate the video sweepstakes statute only if it is not dependent on skill or dexterity?

(2) Is Crazie Overstock’s sweepstakes a pretext for violating other state gambling laws?

Gaming and sweepstakes

Sandhill Amusements, Inc. and Gift Surplus, LLC v. State, No. 363A14-4

Opinion below:


(1) Was it permissible for the Court of Appeals to decide the case below on an interpretation all parties rejected and not raised by the parties or at oral argument?

(2) Do sweepstakes games that are dependent on skill or dexterity violate the video sweepstakes statute?

(3) Is the predominant factor test a question of law or fact?

(4) Do Gift Surplus’s sweepstakes games violate the state bans on gambling or slot machines?

Gaming and sweepstakes

State v. Betts, No. 376A19

Opinion below:


When M.C.’s therapist, Mary Katherine Masola, told jurors she believed M.C. had “experienced a number of traumas,” including sexual abuse and domestic violence, did her testimony constitute impermissible vouching regarding M.C.’s credibility / believability? If so, did Masola’s impermissible vouching constitute plain error? Evidence; plain error

Lake v. State Health Plan, No. 436P13-4

Opinion below:


(1) Did the Court of Appeals err by concluding that there is no contractual obligation from the State to the Plaintiff Class for the provision of any retirement health benefit or for any specific retirement health benefit?

(2) Did the Court of Appeals err by holding that the State had not breached and/or impaired any contracts with Plaintiffs and had not violated the Law of the Land Clause or due process rights by reducing the retirement health benefit that said Plaintiffs had previously vested into?

(3) Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the retirement health benefit is neither deferred compensation nor a vested retirement benefit?

(4) Did the Court of Appeals err in not applying all three standards set forth in NCAE in determining whether there was a contractual obligation between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs?

State Constitution; vested rights; state employee benefits

State v. Melvin, No. 486P19

Opinion below:


Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Mr. Melvin’s severance claim was not preserved for appellate review where the court cited the wrong standard, considered only of Mr. Melvin’s six motions for severance, and failed to address Mr. Melvin’s alternative allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Criminal; appellate procedure

Banyan GW, LLC v. Wayne Preparatory Academy Charter Sch., Inc., No. 188A18-2

Opinion below:


Is a contract enforceable when it is entered into by a public charter school in violation of its charter and statutes governing its operations, with damages for breach being payable from the public funding allotted to the charter school? Is a contract void and unenforceable by its own terms when those terms include a provision declaring the contract null and void when its performance would cause the school to be in violation of its charter?

3-Apr-20: Affirmed, and discretionary review improvidently allowed

Civil; breach of contract; liquidated damages; charter school

Ashe Cty. v. Ashe Cty. Planning Bd., No. 249P19

Opinion below:  COA18-253

(1) Did the county planning board err in granting a permit for

(2) Is a moratorium on new permits an appropriate ground for denying a permit?

(3) Can the government be estopped by statements made by governmental employees in the course of permitting proceedings?

Civil; development ordinance; moratorium; subject matter jurisdiction

Winston Affordable Hous., LLC v. Roberts, No. 267P19

Opinion below:


Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the eviction of a subsidized tenant whose landlord improperly terminated her subsidy in order to fabricate a nonpayment of rent claim which it ultimately used as grounds for evicting her?

Did the Court of Appeals err in not holding that a subsidized landlord’s violations of HUD regulations are unfair trade practices pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1?

Did the trial court err in holding that the plaintiff waived breaches of the lease by the defendant by accepting rents between the date of a termination notice and the effective date of the notice?

1-May-20: Reversed and remanded, with dissenting opinion

Civil; summary ejectment; landlord-tenant; subsidy; unfair or deceptive acts or practices; waiver

Parkes v. Hermann, No. 241PA19

Opinion below: COA18-888

(1) Should the Supreme Court allow plaintiffs to recover under the loss of chance doctrine for medical malpractice actions?

(2) If the Supreme Court adopts the loss of chance doctrine, what limitations should be imposed on the doctrine to prevent windfalls to plaintiffs?

Medical malpractice

Da Silva v. WakeMed, No. 326P18

Opinion below: COA17-820

(1) Whether an internal medicine doctor who rarely practices in a hospital setting can testify to the standard of care for a hospitalist.

(2) Whether a plaintiff raises a genuine issue of material fact by referring to an expert’s testimony on direct examination where the expert limited that testimony during cross examination.

(3) Whether expert testimony that a defendant’s actions merely increased the risk of plaintiff’s injury is sufficient proof of proximate cause in a medical malpractice action.

14-Aug-20: Affirmed, with concurring and dissenting opinions

Medical malpractice

State v. Seam, No. 082A14-2

Opinion below:


Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the defendant’s life with parole sentence, where that sentence is disproportionate under the United States and North Carolina Constitutions, and where that sentence, being mandatory pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B(a)(1), is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant?

28-Feb-20: Affirmed

Criminal; juveniles; sentencing

State v. Conley, No. 075P19

Opinion below: COA18-305

Did the Court of Appeals err by holding that under N.C.G.S. 14-269.2(b) someone carrying five firearms onto educational property can be punished only one time?

3-Apr-20: Affirmed, with dissenting opinion

Criminal; firearms; rule of lenity

State v. Cox, No. 094P19

Opinion below:


Did the Court of Appeals err by reversing, for insufficiency of the evidence, the convictions for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and felonious breaking or entering?

14-Aug-20: Reversed

Criminal; armed robbery; conspiracy

Preston v. Movahed, No. 124P19

Opinion below:


(1) What is the appropriate legal standard to apply to a motion to dismiss on Rule 9(j) grounds?

(2) Did the Court of Appeals err by failing to conduct a proper de novo review of the trial court’s dismissal?

3-Apr-20: Reversed and remanded, with dissenting opinion

Medical malpractice; Rule 9(j); standard of review

State v. Fields, No. 170A19

Opinion below:


(1) Can a defendant be punished for both the Class F felony of assault inflicting serious bodily injury, and the Class H felony habitual misdemeanor assault, when the allegations in both indictments are based on the same assault?

(2) Did the Court of Appeals err by vacating the habitual misdemeanor conviction rather than merely arresting judgment?

(3) Is the proper remedy to allow the trial court on remand to consider applying to the assault inflicting serious bodily injury the jury’s finding that the defendant abused a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense?

5-June-20: Modified and affirmed, and remanded

Criminal; assault; bodily injury

Winkler v. N.C. State Bd. of Plumbing, Heating & Fire Sprinkler Contractors, No. 319PA18

Opinion below:


Did the Court of Appeals err by construing the language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-19.1 to exclude the prevailing non-state agency litigant in an occupational licensing board disciplinary matter?

5-June-20: Modified and affirmed

Disciplinary board; statutory interpretation

Town of Pinebluff v. Moore Cty., No. 398P18

Opinion below:


(1) Did the Court of Appeals err in interpreting decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court and well established canons of statutory construction when it failed to read N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-360 and S.L. 1999-35 in para material?

(2) Did the Court of Appeals’ misapplication of well-established canons of statutory construction create situations where the appellant must impede upon other municipalities’ legal extraterritorial jurisdiction expansion areas, which can produce absurd, illogical, and inconsistent results?

(3) Did the Court of Appeals err when it usurped the appellant’s authority by failing to recognize the plain meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-360(a) and S.L. 1999-35(a), which required Board of County Commissioners approval when a town extends its ETJ over one mile?

(4) Did the Court of Appeals err when it usurped the appellant’s authority by failing to recognize the plain meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-360(e) and S.L. 1999-35(f) where the appellant exercises all three powers set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-360(e), which includes the appellant exercising its planning and zoning regulations, subdivisions regulations, and enforces the State Building Code?

(5) Does the Court of Appeals decision undermine the intent, purpose, and public policy of ETJ?

3-Apr-20: Reversed and remanded

Extraterritorial jurisdiction; statutory interpretation
11-Jun-19 State v. Greenfield, No. 11A19Opinion below: COA17-802 Whether the Court of Appeals erroneously found that the trial court prejudicially erred when it declined to instruct the jury as to self-defense for the assault, where the jury, properly instructed on transferred intent and self-defense for the murder, demonstrated that it rejected defendant’s claim of self-defense when it found him guilty of second-degree murder? Criminal; jury instructions

Chappell v. N.C. Department of Transportation, No. 51PA19

Bypass petition:  petition allowed prior to a determination by the Court of Appeals

(1) Did the trial court err by ruling that the recording of a corridor map under the Map Act is equivalent to a fee simple taking of the affected property?

(2) Did the trial court err by refusing to allow the Department of Transportation to exercise its statutory quick-take rights?

(3) Did the trial court err by awarding plaintiffs interest of 8 percent compounded annually?

(4) Did the trial court err by adding taxes paid by plaintiffs to their compensation award?

1-May-20: Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part

Inverse condemnation; Map Act

Walker v. K&W Cafeterias, No. 99PA19

Opinion below:  COA18-429

(1) Do statutory recipients of a wrongful death action have to reimburse a workers’ compensation lien under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.2 when the recipients did not receive any workers’ compensation payments?

(2) Were the underinsured motorist proceeds in the wrongful death settlement paid under a South Carolina policy of insurance?

(3) Did the North Carolina Industrial Commission exceed its jurisdiction in distributing property to satisfy a workers’ compensation lien, when that property is not located in North Carolina and is subject to the laws of South Carolina, where the property is located, which immunize the property from subrogation?

(4) Does S.C. Code § 38-77-160 immunize the South Carolina underinsurance motorist proceeds, which are in South Carolina, from subrogation under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.2, including orders of distribution under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.2(f), as a matter of law?

(5) Does this Court’s decision in the In re Civil Penalty case obligate the Court of Appeals to follow one of its earlier opinions that is void on its face for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

(6) What is the proper procedure for attaching property to satisfy a workers’ compensation lien under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.2, that preserve the interests of justice and the integrity of the laws of the state in which the property is located?

14-Aug-20: Reversed and remanded, with dissenting opinion

Wrongful death; workers’ compensation; extraterritorial jurisdiction; In re Civil Penalty

State v. Steen, No. 141A19

Opinion below:  COA18-233

Did the Court of Appeals err by concluding the law allowed the jury to consider hands and arms as a deadly weapon for the attempted murder alleged as the underlying felony for felony murder? Criminal; harmless error; murder

State v. Williams, No. 233PA12-2

Opinion below:  COA16-178

(1) Whether imposing two consecutive sentences of life with the possibility of parole violates the United States Constitution and/or the North Carolina Constitution?

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred as a matter of law by holding the trial court is required to determine whether a juvenile murderer is constitutionally eligible for a sentence of life without parole under Miller v. Alabama and its progeny as a “threshold” issue and can do so based solely on determining whether defendant would likely benefit from rehabilitation irrespective of the totality of the circumstances?

Criminal; sentencing; juveniles

Rouse v. Forsyth County Department of Social Services, No. 1P19

Opinion below:  COA17-884

(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision vacating the award of Rouse’s backpay?

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision vacating the award of Rouse’s attorneys’ fees?

28-Feb-20: Reversed and remanded


Estate of Savino v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, No. 18PA19

Opinion below:  COA17-1335

(1) Did the Court of Appeals err by reversing the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for directed verdict on pain and suffering of decedent Savino?

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals’ denial of Atrium’s request for a new trial upon determining that the Estate’s administrative negligence claim was improperly pleaded and time-barred is in conflict with Supreme Court precedent, where the entire trial of this case was tainted by the improper inclusion of evidence relevant to administrative negligence, and where the trial court in its jury instruction intertwined administrative negligence with medical negligence.

(3) Whether the Court of Appeals’ failure to reverse the trial court’s directed verdict on Atrium’s contributory negligence defense conflicts with Supreme Court precedent concerning the sufficiency of the evidence where there was substantial evidence introduced at trial in support of that defense.

Tort; trial procedure
10-May-19 State v. Best, No. 300A93-3 Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the claim of a Brady violation presented in defendant’s motion for appropriate relief. Criminal; motion for appropriate relief; Brady violation

State v. Coles, No. 417PA18

Opinion below:  COA18-357

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by awarding defendant a new trial based on the trial court’s omission of a guilty knowledge element in one part of its jury instructions. Criminal; jury instructions

PHG Asheville, LLC v. City of Asheville, No. 434PA18

Opinion below:  COA18-251

(1) If no one offers evidence in opposition to a development permit, is the developer automatically entitled to the permit, or may the local government independently assess the developer’s evidence and make findings of fact that support denying the permit?

(2) Did the Asheville City Council validly deny PHG’s permit based on 44 findings of fact that the Court of Appeals incorrectly disregarded as “improper,” “superfluous,” “extraneous,” “unnecessary,” and “irrelevant”?

(3) Do the Court’s decisions in Mann Media and Humble Oil compel a decision in favor of the City?

3-Apr-20: Modified and affirmed, with dissenting opinion

Municipalities; development permits

State v. Golder, No. 79PA18

Opinion below: COA16-987

(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in announcing a new rule that the sufficiency of the evidence could be reviewed on appeal for plain error?

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Mr. Golder failed to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence for appellate review and the sufficiency of the evidence of aiding and abetting and obtaining property should be reviewed on appeal?

(3) Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that petitioner “aided and abetted” Ballentine?

(4) Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that “value” was obtained for purposes of obtaining property by false pretenses?

3-Apr-20: Modified and affirmed

Criminal; error preservation; sufficiency of the evidence

Chavez v. Carmichael, No. 437PA18 (consolidated with Lopez v. Carmichael)

Opinion below:  COA18-317

(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to review or consider Petitioner’s habeas petitions where the record did not establish that the Petitioners were in federal custody?

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to review or consider a habeas petition challenging detention based on an immigration detainer or administrative immigration warrant even where the jurisdiction has no 287(g) agreement?

(3) Whether the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the Sheriff’s petitions as moot?

(4) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to dismiss the Sheriff’s arguments where he failed to preserve his arguments as required under Rule 10?

5-June-20: Modified and affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded

Habeas; immigration; mootness; issue preservation

Cabarrus County Board of Education v. Department of State Treasurer, Retirement Systems Division, No. 369PA18

Opinion below:  COA17-1017

Cabarrus County Board of Education v. Board of Trustees, Teachers’ and State Employees’ Retirement System, No. 371PA18

Opinion below:  COA17-1019

Did the Court of Appeals err by ruling that the cap factor requires rulemaking?

3-Apr-20: Affirmed, with dissenting opinion

Administrative law; rulemaking

Desmond v. News & Observer Publishing Company, No. 132PA18-2

Opinion below:  COA18-411

(1) Does the First Amendment’s “actual malice” standard protect media defendants against defamation liability based on a conflict in testimony between a newspaper reporter and the reporter’s quoted or cited sources about the accuracy of attributions to those sources, without regard to the substantial truth of the challenged statements considered fully in context?

(2) Must a public-official libel plaintiff show the existence of one of the statutory aggravating factors, in addition to a liability-phase finding of constitutional “actual malice,” in order to recover punitive damages against a media defendant?

14-Aug-20: Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part

First Amendment; punitive damages

Chambers v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, No. 147PA18

Opinion below:  COA17-686

(1) Did the court below err in determining that Plaintiff’s claim for a classwide declaratory judgment interpreting Defendants’ emergency room contract is moot because Defendants voluntarily dismissed their counterclaim against Plaintiff seeking to collect his bill?

(2) Did the courts below err in ruling that Defendants could circumvent judicial review of the contract by voluntarily dismissing their collection action against Plaintiff?

(3) Did the trial court err in ruling that Plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory judgment interpreting the contract is not a matter of public interest?

(4) Did the trial court err in ruling that Defendants’ dismissal of their collection action against Plaintiff for the purpose of mooting his individual claim also mooted the claims of unnamed members of the putative class?

5-June-20: Reversed and remand, with dissenting opinion

Class actions; mootness; declaratory judgments

State v. Bennett, No. 406PA18

Opinion below:  COA17-1027

(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s ruling denying defendant’s Batson motion?

(2) Whether the majority of the Court of Appeals erred by holding “that if the trial court determines that it can reliably infer the race of a prospective juror based upon its observations during voir dire, and it thereafter makes a finding of fact based upon its observations, a defendant’s burden of preserving that prospective juror’s race for the record has been met”?

Batson challenges

State v. Hobbs, No. 263PA18

Opinion below: COA17-1255

(1) Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied Williams by limiting its review to the moot question of whether Mr. Hobbs had established a prima facie showing, rather than considering the trial court’s ultimate ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent?

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied Batson and its progeny by failing to properly consider all relevant factors and conclude that Mr. Hobbs had made a prima facie showing in his first Batson claim?

(3) Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied Batson and its progeny by failing to properly address the comparative juror analysis and the remainder of the totality of the circumstances, and by failing to conclude that the State’s strikes of jurors Landry and McNeill were motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent, and should therefore result in a new trial?

1-May-20: Reversed and remanded, with dissenting opinion

Batson challenges

New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Stein, No. 339PA18

Opinion below:  COA17-1374

(1) Do payments made to the Attorney General pursuant to an agreement fall within the scope of Article IX, Section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution?

(2) Were there disputed issues of material fact such that summary judgment was inappropriate?

3-Apr-20: Reversed and remanded, with dissenting opinion

State Constitution; Clear Proceeds Clause

State v. Osborne, No. 355PA18 (restricted docket)

Opinion below:  COA18-9

Was the State required to present a scientifically valid chemical analysis of suspected heroin to survive a motion to dismiss?

16-Aug-19: Reversed and remanded, with concurring opinion

Criminal; identification of controlled substances

State v. Walton, No. 311PA18

Opinion below:  COA17-1359

Did violation reports provide the defendant with adequate notice of a violation of the conditions of probation under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1345(e)? Criminal; probation

State v. Waycaster, No. 294A18

Opinion below:  COA17-1249

Does the admission of evidence from a “data compilation” under the business records exception to the hearsay rule require a foundation to be laid by a custodian or other qualified witness who can testify to the methods by which the data complication was made, verified, and maintained?

14-Aug-20: Affirmed in part, discretionary review improvidently allowed in part, with concurring and dissenting opinions