Sparse record—Supreme Court's constitutional and inherent authority—Court of Appeals decision—no precedential value—Where the record in a case was too sparse for adequate judicial review, the Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and exercised its constitutional and inherent authority to order that the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case had no precedential value. Sanchez v. Cobblestone Homeowners Ass'n of Clayton, Inc., 370 N.C. 624 (2018) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

Disciplinary hearing—public reprimand—conduct prejudicial to administrative of justice—A deputy commissioner of the North Carolina Industrial Commission was publicly reprimanded for conduct in violation of Canons 1 and 2A of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brought the judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376. In re W.H.S., 370 N.C. 595 (2018) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

Piercing the veil—not a theory of liability—Where plaintiffs, who owned a dance studio, allegedly entered into contracts with defendant dancers pursuant to which plaintiffs procured visas for defendant dancers in exchange for the dancers' express promise to work exclusively for plaintiffs, and thereafter defendant dancers began working for defendant dance studio, the Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that defendant dance studio owners (the Manlys) could be held liable in their individual capacities for the tort claims brought against defendant dance studio (Metropolitan Ballroom). Because plaintiffs failed to state a valid, underlying claim against defendants, it was immaterial whether Metropolitan Ballroom or the Manlys, in their individual capacities, would be liable for those claims. Krawiec v. Manly, 370 N.C. 602 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Jury instruction—self-defense—omission of stand-your-ground provision—The trial court erred in a first-degree murder case by giving its self-defense jury instruction that omitted the relevant stand-your-ground provision. Defendant showed a reasonable possibility that, had the trial court given the required stand-your-ground instruction, a different result would have been reached at trial. Defendant was entitled to a new trial with proper self-defense and stand-your-ground instructions. State v. Lee, 370 N.C. 671 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Rape Shield Law—STDs in complainant absent in defendant—In defendant's trial for sexual offenses committed against his daughter, the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the complainant's history of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) pursuant to Rule of Evidence 412. The excluded evidence-which included expert testimony regarding the presence of STDs in the complainant and the absence of those STDs in defendant and the inference that defendant did not commit the charged crimes-fell within the exception to the Rape Shield Law set forth in Rule of Evidence 412(b)(2), as "evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant." There was a reasonable probability that, had this error not been committed, a different result would have been reached at trial. State v. Jacobs, 370 N.C. 661 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Motion to dismiss—sufficiency of indictment—amount of money obtained not required—The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charges of obtaining property by false pretenses. The indictment was facially valid and fulfilled the purpose of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1975. The indictment did not need to include the amount of money obtained because it adequately advised defendant of the conduct that was the subject of the accusation. Further, the State presented sufficient evidence at trial regarding defendant's false representation of ownership. State v. Mostafavi, 370 N.C. 681 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Restraint—actions after sexual assault—The trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to dismiss a second-degree kidnapping charge, because there was sufficient evidence of restraint that was separate and apart from that inherent in the commission of the first-degree sex offense to support the kidnapping conviction. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence showed that defendant positioned himself on top of the victim on a bed, punched him until he was stunned, and penetrated him. The victim then swung and kicked at the defendant, defendant jumped off the victim, grabbed him by the ankles, yanked him off the bed, and kicked and stomped the victim with an accomplice without a further attempt at sexual assault. Defendant's actions after the victim swung at him constituted an additional restraint. State v. China, 370 N.C. 627 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Termination—police officer—right to request jury trial—The Court of Appeals erred in a police officer termination case by concluding that only petitioner City of Asheville had the right to request a jury trial. A respondent, just as much as a petitioner, may demand a jury trial in a superior court appeal of an Asheville Civil Service Board decision. The case was reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the superior court. City of Asheville v. Frost, 370 N.C. 590 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)

Misdemeanor possession of marijuana—elevation to felony—Under the reasoning of State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 473 (2004), and in light of the plain language of N.C.G.S. § 90-95(e)(3), possession of more than one-half but less than one and one-half ounces of marijuana in violation of N.C.G.S. § 90-95(d)(4) by a defendant with a prior conviction for an offense punishable under the Act is classified as a Class I felony for all purposes. The General Assembly intended for subdivision (e)(3) to establish a separate felony offense rather than merely to serve as a sentence enhancement of the underlying misdemeanor. State v. Howell, 370 N.C. 647 (2018) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Civil conspiracy—dismissed—Where plaintiffs, who owned a dance studio, allegedly entered into contracts with defendant dancers pursuant to which plaintiffs procured visas for defendant dancers in exchange for the dancers' express promise to work exclusively for plaintiffs, and thereafter defendant dancers began working for defendant dance studio, the N.C. Business Court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs' claims against defendants for civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs' amended complaint lacked sufficient detail to state a claim for civil conspiracy based on defendants' unlawful behavior, and the other acts alleged were held by the N.C. Supreme Court to be pled insufficiently. Krawiec v. Manly, 370 N.C. 602 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Tortious interference with contract—knowledge of contract—Where plaintiffs, who owned a dance studio, allegedly entered into contracts with defendant dancers pursuant to which plaintiffs procured visas for defendant dancers in exchange for the dancers' express promise to work exclusively for plaintiffs, and thereafter defendant dancers began working for defendant dance studio, the N.C. Business Court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs' claim against defendant dance studio for tortious interference with contract. None of the factual allegations in plaintiffs' amended complaint demonstrated how the defendant dance studio could have known of the alleged exclusive employment agreement. Krawiec v. Manly, 370 N.C. 602 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Misappropriation of—sufficient particularity in pleadings—Where plaintiffs, who owned a dance studio, allegedly entered into contracts with defendant dancers pursuant to which plaintiffs procured visas for defendant dancers in exchange for the dancers' express promise to work exclusively for plaintiffs, and thereafter defendant dancers began working for defendant dance studio, the N.C. Business Court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs' claim against defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets. Plaintiffs' description in their amended complaint of their trade secrets as their "original ideas and concepts for dance productions, marketing strategies and tactics, as well as student, client and customer lists and their contact information" failed to provide sufficient particularity to enable defendants to delineate what they were accused of misappropriating and a court to determine whether misappropriation had or was threatened to occur. Krawiec v. Manly, 370 N.C. 602 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Underlying claims dismissed—Where plaintiffs, who owned a dance studio, allegedly entered into contracts with defendant dancers pursuant to which plaintiffs procured visas for defendant dancers in exchange for the dancers' express promise to work exclusively for plaintiffs, and thereafter defendant dancers began working for defendant dance studio, the N.C. Business Court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs' claim against defendants for unfair and deceptive practices (UDP). Because plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for tortious interfere with contact or misappropriation of trade secrets, plaintiffs necessarily also failed to adequately state a claim for UDP. Krawiec v. Manly, 370 N.C. 602 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Benefit of work visa—Where plaintiffs, who owned a dance studio, allegedly entered into contracts with defendant dancers pursuant to which plaintiffs procured visas for defendant dancers in exchange for the dancers' express promise to work exclusively for plaintiffs, and thereafter defendant dancers began working for defendant dance studio, the N.C. Business Court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs' claims against defendant dance studio for unjust enrichment. While plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that defendant dance studio received the benefit of plaintiffs' procurement of their O1-B work visas for defendant dancers, this allegation was contradicted by documents attached to plaintiffs' amended complaint that indicated that the visas authorized defendant dancers to be employed only by plaintiffs. Krawiec v. Manly, 370 N.C. 602 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)