Failure to preserve argument for appeal—Where defendant voluntarily met with detectives at the police station and was questioned for just under five hours before being placed under arrest and Mirandized, the trial's court's determination that the waiver forms introduced into evidence by the State "accurately reflect[ed] the required Miranda warnings" was supported by competent evidence in the record and not challenged by defendant. Defendant did not preserve the argument that officers employed the "question first, warn later" technique to obtain his confession in violation of Miranda and Seibert. State v. Johnson, 371 N.C. 870 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

Partial retrial ordered—authority of Court of Appeals—On the unusual facts of the case, the Court of Appeals did not err by awarding a partial rather than a full retrial in a medical malpractice case where the trial court set aside the verdict and entered an amended verdict. The only remedy available to the trial court was a new trial in whole or in part, the trial court's substantive decision to grant plaintiff relief from the original verdict was not disturbed on appeal, and the Court of Appeals had ample authority to order implementation of the relief that could be properly afforded to plaintiff on remand. Justus v. Rosner, 371 N.C. 818 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Questioning before Miranda warnings—Miranda and voluntariness inquiries—Where defendant voluntarily met with detectives at the police station and was questioned for just under five hours before being placed under arrest and Mirandized, the Court of Appeals erred by condensing the Miranda and voluntariness inquiries into one in its opinion concluding that defendant's inculpatory statements to law enforcement were involuntary. State v. Johnson, 371 N.C. 870 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

Voluntariness—findings and conclusion supported—Where defendant voluntarily met with detectives at the police station and was questioned for just under five hours before being placed under arrest and Mirandized, the trial court's conclusion that defendant's inculpatory statements were voluntarily made was adequately supported by its findings of fact, and those findings were supported by competent evidence in the record. State v. Johnson, 371 N.C. 870 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

Medical malpractice—expert witnesses—The trial court did not abuse its discretion in an award of costs in a medical malpractice action against a doctor and hospitals where the doctor contended that it was improper to assess fees for the testimony of experts whose testimony concerned the only the hospitals. The experts did address issues relating to the doctor in addition to the hospitals. There was no issue concerning N.C.G.S. § 7A-305(d)(11), which authorizes certain costs. Justus v. Rosner, 371 N.C. 818 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Cabinet—senatorial confirmation—separation of powers—The Supreme Court held that senatorial confirmation of members of the Governor's Cabinet did not violate the separation of powers clause because the Governor retained the power to nominate them, had strong supervisory authority over them, and had the power to remove them at will. The appointments provision of N.C.G.S. § 143B-9(a) did not unconstitutionally impede the Governor's ability to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and the constitution did not otherwise prohibit the General Assembly from requiring senatorial confirmation of members of the Governor's Cabinet. Cooper v. Berger, 371 N.C. 799 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)

Felony littering—unauthorized persons and locations—The indictment charging defendant with felony littering was facially invalid because it failed to allege an essential element of the statutory crime-that defendant was an unauthorized person who deposited refuse on property not designated for such activity. Facts satisfying N.C.G.S § 14-399(a)(1) needed to be alleged because the statement of the offense of littering was not complete unless it excluded authorized locations and persons from its definition. State v. Rankin, 371 N.C. 885 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

County's method of sales tax distribution—Leandro challenge—State responsibility—The trial court did not err by granting a N.C. Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a claim brought under Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336 (1997), where an action challenged a county's choice of method of distribution for local sales tax revenue to a tripartite school system. The claim was untenable because it assumed that a county board of commissioners had a constitutional duty to provide a sound basic education; county boards of commissioners had no such duty. The remedy for these harms rested with the State. Silver v. Halifax Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 371 N.C. 855 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

SWAT perimeter—defendant walking through—heavy object in pocket—The search and seizure of defendant did not violate the Fourth Amendment where a SWAT team was conducting a sweep of a house in a dangerous area; defendant walked through the perimeter of SWAT officers stationed around the house, stating that he was going to get his moped; and defendant had a heavy object in his pocket that appeared to an officer to be a firearm. The rule in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), justified the seizure because defendant, who was within the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched and present during the execution of a search warrant, qualified as an occupant under Summers because he posed a real threat to the safe and efficient completion of the search. Further, the search and seizure were supported by individualized suspicion under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). State v. Wilson, 371 N.C. 920 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)

Medical malpractice—verdict set aside—The Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by setting aside a verdict in a medical malpractice action based on N.C. Civil Procedure Rule 59(a)(7). The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether a verdict is against the greater weight of the evidence, including whether the jurors were affected by misleading suggestions from expert witnesses. Justus v. Rosner, 371 N.C. 818 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)