Jury instructions—conspirators—plain error analysis—no prejudice shown—In a trial for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, where the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendant could be found guilty if he conspired with "at least one other person" without naming the only co-conspirator listed in the conspiracy indictment, there was no plain error because there was no reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the error given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. The decision of the Court of Appeals reaching the opposite conclusion, without a prejudice analysis being conducted, was reversed. State v. Chavez , 378 N.C. 265 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Brady violation—materiality—additional prior convictions of prosecution witness—Defendant was not entitled to post-conviction relief (after being convicted and sentenced to death for first-degree murder) on his claim that the State committed a Brady violation by failing to turn over a complete criminal record of a prosecution witness prior to trial, because the omitted prior convictions were not material. The jury was already informed of the witness's prior convictions for more serious crimes, and, for the murder being prosecuted, that the witness had initially provided false statements to law enforcement and had been charged as an accessory after the fact. State v. Allen , 378 N.C. 286 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Courtroom restraints—issue raised in MAR—record insufficient—evidentiary hearing required—On defendant's post-conviction claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was shackled during his trial for first-degree murder (for which he was convicted and sentenced to death), the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the issue as procedurally barred. Since the record was devoid of information establishing that defendant was actually restrained in the courtroom, that the shackles were visible to the jury, and that defense counsel was aware that the restraints were visible to the jury, an evidentiary hearing was required to develop the necessary factual foundation before the claim could be resolved. State v. Allen , 378 N.C. 286 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Effective assistance of counsel—murder trial—sentencing phase—The trial court properly dismissed defendant's post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel claims pertaining to the sentencing phase of his first-degree murder trial where, after the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, its findings were supported by evidence and in turn supported its conclusion that defense counsel's performance was not deficient and, even if it was, defendant could not demonstrate he suffered prejudice. State v. Allen , 378 N.C. 286 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Effective assistance of counsel—summary dismissal of claims—factual disputes—evidentiary hearing required—Where defendant's post-conviction claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his trial for first-degree murder, for which defendant was convicted and sentenced to death, raised factual disputes, the trial court erred by summarily dismissing those claims because defendant presented facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief. Defendant presented evidence that his counsel's decision not to investigate the crime scene evidence, from which different interpretations could be drawn, was not a reasonable strategic choice, and that he was prejudiced by being deprived of the opportunity to rebut the main witness's account of how the victim was killed. The matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing with instructions for the trial court, if it concluded counsel's performance was deficient, to consider how any deficiencies prejudiced defendant when considered both individually and cumulatively. State v. Allen , 378 N.C. 286 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

False and misleading testimony—State's witness—MAR claim—Defendant was not entitled to post-conviction relief (after being convicted and sentenced to death for first-degree murder) on his claim that the State violated his constitutional rights by knowingly presenting false testimony through the main prosecution witness, because even assuming the claim was not procedurally barred for having been raised on direct appeal, there was nothing in the record to show the State knew the witness's testimony was false. State v. Allen , 378 N.C. 286 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Right to silence—notice of intent to raise affirmative defense—preemptive impeachment by State—unconstitutional—Defendant's pretrial notice of intent to raise the affirmative defense of duress, given in a methamphetamine trafficking prosecution to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-905(c)(1), did not cause the forfeiture of her Fifth Amendment right to silence, and the State should not have been permitted to preemptively impeach her–by asking a police detective whether defendant made any statements about another man who had just been arrested when she handed over the drugs–during its case-in-chief when she had not testified at that point in the trial. State v. Shuler , 378 N.C. 337 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Breach—conflicts in evidence—additional findings of fact required—remand appropriate—In an action for breach of contract (involving a tree company that had been contracted to mulch trees up to six to eight inches in diameter), the Court of Appeals appropriately remanded the matter to the trial court for additional findings of fact where the lower court's findings, upon which rested its conclusion that there was no breach of contract, did not resolve conflicts in the evidence regarding which of two methods the tree company used to measure the size of the trees. Carolina Mulching Co. v. Raleigh-Wilmington Invs. II, LLC , 378 N.C. 100 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Post-conviction relief—access to medical records—limited evidentiary hearing—dismissal of claim—The trial court properly dismissed defendant's post-conviction claim seeking relief (after being convicted of first-degree murder) for his counsel being denied access to certain prior treatment records of the main prosecution witness. The trial court's conclusion, made after a limited evidentiary hearing, that defendant could not demonstrate prejudice–because the records did not indicate the witness had a relevant mental health condition and they did not include evidence of substance abuse not already disclosed by the witness at trial–was supported by its findings of fact, which were in turn supported by evidence. State v. Allen , 378 N.C. 286 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Post-conviction relief—short-form indictment—first-degree murder—issue procedurally barred—Defendant's post-conviction claim that a short-form indictment was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the trial court for his first-degree murder trial was procedurally barred where he raised the issue on direct appeal. State v. Allen , 378 N.C. 286 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Punitive—sufficiency of pleading—willful or wanton conduct—In a wrongful death action filed against individual employees of a state university, the complaint contained sufficient allegations to put defendants on notice for punitive damages, based on willful and wanton conduct (N.C.G.S. § 1D-15(a)), where the allegations stated that defendants' negligent acts or omissions in failing to properly drain a chiller and refill it with antifreeze, particularly given warning signs posted on the chiller, could cause injury in the event the pipe froze and became pressurized, and that their conduct demonstrated a conscious disregard of the safety of others. Est. of Long v. Fowler , 378 N.C. 138 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Sovereign—individual versus official capacity—dismissal improper—In a wrongful death action filed against individual employees of a state university, the trial court erred by dismissing the action after determining that the employees were entitled to sovereign immunity based on their status as state employees, since the employees were sued in their individual capacities, even if their alleged negligent acts were performed in the scope of their employment. Est. of Long v. Fowler , 378 N.C. 138 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Impermissible expression of opinion—in presence of jury—prejudice analysis—jury instructions and evidence—In a trial for assault on a female, even assuming that the trial court violated N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232 by improperly expressing its opinion during jury instructions that defendant assaulted the victim, defendant could not show prejudice where the trial court's instructions as a whole made clear that only the jury could make the factual determination of whether defendant assaulted the victim and where the State's evidence satisfied the elements of the crime. State v. Austin , 378 N.C. 272 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Impermissible expression of opinion—in presence of jury—preservation—standard of review—Defendant's argument that the trial court improperly expressed an opinion on the evidence in violation of N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232 while instructing the jury was preserved by operation of law due to the mandatory nature of the statutory prohibitions, and thus the alleged error was subject to review for prejudicial error pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a). State v. Austin , 378 N.C. 272 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Personal—minimum contacts—cell phone calls—no knowledge recipient in N.C.—Defendant lacked the requisite minimum contacts with the state of North Carolina to be subject to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) proceeding where defendant, who had previously been in a romantic relationship with plaintiff outside of North Carolina, called plaintiff's cell phone many times on the evening that plaintiff had moved from South Carolina to North Carolina–when there was no evidence that defendant knew or had reason to know that plaintiff was in North Carolina. Because he did not know plaintiff was in North Carolina, defendant's phone calls did not constitute purposeful availment of the benefits and protections of the laws of North Carolina. In addition, plaintiff's argument that the "status exception" doctrine allowed exercise of personal jurisdiction was rejected. Mucha v. Wagner , 378 N.C. 167 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Insurance—underinsured motorist coverage—applicable limit—interpolicy stacking—A North Carolina resident injured in an out-of-state car accident as a passenger in a car owned and operated by a Tennessee resident and insured by a Tennessee insurer, where that driver's negligence caused the accident, was entitled to collect underinsured motor vehicle (UIM) coverage benefits from her North Carolina insurer. Based on North Carolina law allowing interpolicy stacking when calculating applicable policy limits (pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4)), the Tennessee policy's UIM coverage limit constituted an "applicable limit" and, because the stacked UIM coverage limits exceeded the sum of the applicable bodily injury coverage limits, the car owned by the Tennessee resident was an underinsured motor vehicle as defined in North Carolina. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lunsford , 378 N.C. 181 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Sufficiency of pleading—proximate cause—burst pipes—In a wrongful death action filed against individual employees of a state university, the complaint adequately pled proximate cause through allegations that the employees knew or should have known, given warning signs posted outside a chiller, that their negligent acts in failing to properly drain the chiller and refill it with antifreeze could cause injury in the event the pipe froze and became pressurized. Therefore, the trial court improperly dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. Est. of Long v. Fowler , 378 N.C. 138 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

North Carolina Railroad Company—private company—State sole shareholder—not subject to Public Records Act—The North Carolina Railroad Company–a private company whose sole shareholder was the State of North Carolina and which was organized and operated for the benefit of the public–was not an agency or subdivision of the North Carolina government subject to the Public Records Act. Although, among other things, the State was the company's sole shareholder, the State selected the company's board members, and the State would receive the company's assets in the event of the company's dissolution, nonetheless the General Assembly indicated its intent in relevant legislation that the company should not be considered an entity of the State, and decisions of other State entities also supported this conclusion. Furthermore, the company consistently maintained its separate corporate identity and made decisions independently, demonstrating that the State's exercise of authority over the company was in its capacity as shareholder rather than as sovereign. S. Env't Law Ctr. v. N.C. Railroad Co. , 378 N.C. 202 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Admissions—attempt to contradict by affidavit—summary judgment—In an action by plaintiff bank for reformation of a deed based on mutual mistake, defendant property owner could not use her affidavit to contradict her binding admissions and thereby create an issue of material fact as to the parties' intent for the deed of trust to secure repayment of the promissory note executed during a refinance. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stocks , 378 N.C. 342 (2021) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Traffic stop—Terry search for weapons in vehicle—totality of circumstances—history of violent crime—A police officer who initiated a traffic stop of defendant for a fictitious license plate had reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry search for weapons in the areas of the vehicle that were under defendant's immediate control where the traffic stop occurred at night in a high-crime area, defendant appeared very nervous, defendant bladed his body when he accessed his center console to look for registration papers, and defendant's criminal history indicated a trend in violent crime. Further, the traffic stop was not unconstitutionally prolonged where the officer stopped defendant's vehicle, spoke with defendant, performed a routine records check that showed defendant's violent criminal history, and then performed the Terry search of the vehicle for weapons. State v. Johnson , 378 N.C. 236 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Three years—N.C.G.S. § 1-52(9)—mutual mistake—deed reformation—In an action for reformation of a deed of trust brought by a bank, the cause of action accrued when the bank should have discovered the drafting error (listing the wrong family member as the borrower), and its first opportunity to do so was after the borrower defaulted, even though the document was drafted with the error years earlier. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations in N.C.G.S. § 1-52(9) applied because the action was to reform the instrument due to mutual mistake, and the bank's action was timely filed within three years of the default and the bank's subsequent investigation of the loan instruments to prepare for foreclosure. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stocks , 378 N.C. 342 (2021) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Ad valorem taxes—true value—appraisal methodology—functional and economic obsolescence—The Property Tax Commission properly accepted a county's valuation method to determine the true value of business personal property (used grocery store equipment) for purposes of an ad valorem tax assessment. The Commission's factual determinations regarding whether the appraisal properly accounted for functional and economic obsolescence were supported by substantial evidence in the form of an appraiser's testimony, and the Commission was justified in declining to adopt the business's approach of relying on market sales to determine the extent of depreciation adjustments. In re Harris Teeter, LLC , 378 N.C. 108 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)