Ineffective assistance of counsel—sufficient evidence received at trial—merits addressed on appeal—The merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim were heard on appeal (as opposed to through a motion for appropriate relief) where defendant first raised his claim in a motion before trial and again in a hearing on the State's motion in limine, the court was able to receive evidence and make findings, and the cold record revealed that no further investigation was required. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Petition to Court of Appeals for writ of certiorari—absence of procedural rule—Where defendant pleaded guilty to driving while impaired and petitioned the Court of Appeals for review by writ of certiorari of the denial of her motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that it was procedurally barred from issuing a discretionary writ because there was no procedural process under Rule of Appellate Procedure 21. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(e) to issue a writ of certiorari, and the absence of a procedural rule did not limit its jurisdiction or authority to do so. State v. Ledbetter, 371 N.C. 192 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

Defendant's statement to police—confession to one of three crimes—stipulation at trial—effect on credibility—harmless error—The trial court did not err in a prosecution for kidnapping, rape, and murder by admitting defendant's statements to police where defendant admitted only to the kidnapping, a fact to which he stipulated at trial, any prejudice caused by the admission of his statements was limited to the effect on lis credibility, and any effect on defendant's credibility would be harmless error due to the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Confrontation Clause—statements made by deceased victim—ongoing emergency—nontestimonial—Where the trial court admitted, through the testimony of a police officer, statements made by the murder victim approximately nine months before the murder during a domestic dispute with defendant (her estranged husband), the Court of Appeals erred by holding that admission of the statements violated the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The statements were nontestimonial. They occurred during the course of an ongoing emergency that resulted from defendant entering the victim's apartment, detaining her there, and physically assaulting her; and they led to the officer's decision to enter the apartment to ensure that defendant had left and no longer posed a threat to the victim. State v. Miller, 371 N.C. 273 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Due process—cumulative effect—There was no due process violation in a prosecution for kidnapping, rape, and murder where defendant contended for such a violation from the cumulative effect of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, admission of testimony that defendant's lawyers revealed the location of the victim to police, and the evidence driving from the discovery of the body, Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court did not err in any evidentiary rulings. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Effective assistance of counsel—disclosure's of location of victim's body—understanding with counsel—Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel where he was charged with kidnapping, rape, and murder, his attorneys revealed the location of the victim's body, and defendant asserted on appeal that his attorneys erroneously advised him that they would shield his identity as the source of the information. The entire purpose of the disclosure, to which defendant agreed, was to show cooperation by defendant and the method of disclosure allowed an immediate inference of cooperation but avoided any inadvertent admission of guilt. Whether defendant's attorneys should have advised him to adopt a different strategy is a separate question which defendant did not raise. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Effective assistance of counsel—investigation of case—A defendant received effective assistance of counsel where he was charged with kidnapping, rape, and murder and alleged that his attorneys did not conduct an adequate investigation before disclosing the location of the victim's body. The investigation was at an early stage so that there was no discovery file to examine, and defendant did not identify anything that the allegedly inadequate investigation failed to uncover which would have had any effect on the reasonableness of the strategic decision to make the disclosure. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Ineffective assistance of counsel—Cronic claim—location of victim revealed—A defendant in the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 5 year old child received effective assistance of counsel, despite his claim of a breakdown of the adversarial process under United States v. Chronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), where his attorneys' disclosure of the location of the victim was a reasonable strategic decision. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Ineffective assistance of counsel—revealing location of missing victim's body—A defendant who was eventually tried for the kidnapping, rape, first-degree murder, of a five-year-old girl received effective assistance of counsel where his attorneys disclosed the location of the victim's body. His attorneys had been involved in the case for one day, there was uncertainty over whether the victim was still alive, the weather was cold and rainy, there was a massive law enforcement search in the area, and the attorneys were concerned that the value of the information would diminish if the girl died or was found without defendant's information. There was other heavily incriminating evidence and attorneys' goal was to avoid the death penalty through a plea bargain or the mitigating circumstances of remorse and cooperation. A plea bargain was not secured before the information was released but defendant subsequently twice declined plea bargain offers to remove the death penalty. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Intellectual disability defense—motion to set aside verdict—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to set aside the jury's verdict on intellectual disability in a prosecution for kidnapping, rape and murder. Although defendant presented evidence to support a determination that he e deemed exempt from the death penalty on the grounds of intellectual disability, the State presented expert testimony that supported the verdict. The relative credibility of the testimony of the various expert witnesses was a matter for the jury. State v. Rodriguez, 371 N.C. 295 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Location of victim's body—disclosure by defense—The trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied defendant's motions for mistrial in a prosecution for kidnapping, rape, and murder and where the prosecutor made two comments in his closing arguments about the victim's location being revealed by the defense. The statement that the body was found where 'defendant's lawyer said he put the body' was improper because the statement was couched as a statement of fact, which was not accurate, rather than as an inference. The statement that defendant's 'attorney telling law enforcement where to look for the body puts him there' was not improper and was a permissible inference. However, the improper statement was not such a serious impropriety as to make it impossible to attain a fair and impartial verdict, the judge gave curative instructions, and the evidence against defendant was overwhelming. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Racial Justice Act—failure to raise issues—A defendant in a kidnapping, rape, and murder prosecution could not complain of the trial court's failure to strictly adhere to the Racial Justice Act's pretrial statutory procedures where he himself failed to follow those procedures. There was no prejudice to defendant's ability to raise a claim in a motion for appropriate relief. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Attorney client privilege—revelation of location of victim—Information about the location of the victim in a prosecution for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a five year old child was not protected by the attorney-client privilege because defendant communicated the information to his attorneys with the purpose that it be relayed to law enforcement. It was noted that the attorney-client privilege and the ethical duty of confidentiality are not synonymous, although the two principles are related. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Expert witness—prior testimony for defense in another case—In a prosecution for kidnapping, rape, and murder in which the defense of intellectual disability was raised, the trial court did not err by allowing the State to elicit evidence that it's expert had previously testified for a criminal defense client in another case. The testimony was relevant to the witness's lack of bias and it could not be said that the testimony constituted impermissible prosecutorial vouching for the witness's credibility. State v. Rodriguez, 371 N.C. 295 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Hearsay—admission—location of victim—officer's testimony—information received from attorneys—Testimony from a an officer that he received information about the location of the victim from defendant's attorneys was not inadmissible hearsay where defendant authorized his attorneys to convey the information to law enforcement. Moreover, the officer was not permitted to testify about any feelings as to the source of the information. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

—first-degree murder—identity—sufficiency of evidence—The trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to dismiss a first-degree murder charge for insufficient evidence of defendant's identity. The evidence contained ample support for the State's contention that defendant caused the victim's death and permitted the inference that defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation. State v. Rodriguez, 371 N.C. 295 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

—selection—death penalty—intellectually disabled person—In a capital prosecution for first-degree murder, the limitations that the trial court placed upon the ability of defendant's trial counsel to question prospective jurors concerning intellectual disability issues constituted an abuse of discretion or render the trial fundamentally unfair. Defendant was allowed explain that intellectual disability is a defense to the death penalty ask prospective jurors about their experience with intellectual disabilities and their ability to follow the trial court's instruction. State v. Rodriguez, 371 N.C. 295 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Driving while impaired—license revocation—standard of review—Where the N.C. Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked defendant's driving privileges for his refusal to submit to a chemical analysis, and the superior court reversed the DMV hearing officer's decision, the Court of Appeals erred on review by making witness credibility determinations and resolving contradictions in the evidence when it determined that the DMV hearing officer's conclusion was "not supported by the record evidence or the findings." Based on the unchallenged findings of fact, petitioner's repeated failure to follow the chemical analyst's instructions on how to provide a sufficient breath sample, after being warned that a refusal to comply would be recorded if such failure continued, constituted willful refusal to submit to a chemical analysis. Brackett v. Thomas, 371 N.C. 121 (2018) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

State Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction—powers and duties—Legislation that amended numerous provisions of N.C.G.S. Chapter 115C-eliminating certain aspects of the N.C. State Board of Education's oversight of a number of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's powers and duties, and assigning several powers and duties that had formerly belonged to the Board or the Governor to the Superintendent-did not, on its face, violate Article IX, Section 5 of the N.C. Constitution. The Board's continued ability to exercise its constitutional authority to generally supervise and administer the public school system was preserved by both the explicit statutory language affording the Board continued responsibility for the supervision and administration of the public school system and the explicit ability to adopt appropriate rules and regulations governing the duties assigned to the Superintendent. The Court further determined that the "needed rules and regulations" to which the legislation referred were not subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State, 371 N.C. 170 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

State Board of Education rules—review by Rules Review Commission—delegation of authority—The General Assembly properly delegated authority to the Rules Review Commission to review the State Board of Education's proposed rules. The statutes at issue included sufficient restrictions on the Commission and safeguards to ensure the Board's continued ability to fulfill its mandates as set forth in the state constitution. Further, the Commission was tasked only with the responsibility to review the Board's rules from a procedural perspective for clarity and to ensure that the rules were adopted in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State, 371 N.C. 149 (2018) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

State Board of Education rules—review by Rules Review Commission—plain language of N.C. Constitution—The plain language of Article IX, Section 5 of the N.C. Constitution authorized the General Assembly to require the State Board of Education to submit its proposed rules to the Rules Review Commission for review because this procedure was statutorily enacted and the Board's prescribed constitutional duties are subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly. N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State, 371 N.C. 149 (2018) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Appeal of admissibility of evidence—no motion to suppress before or at trial—complete waiver of review on direct appeal—In a case of first impression, where defendant did not move to suppress-before or at trial-evidence of cocaine found in his pocket during a traffic stop, but instead argued for the first time on appeal that the seizure of the cocaine resulted from Fourth Amendment violations, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred by conducting plain error review and concluding that the trial court committed plain error by admitting evidence of the cocaine. Defendant's Fourth Amendment claims were not reviewable on direct appeal, even for plain error, because he completely waived them by not moving to suppress the evidence of the cocaine before or at trial. State v. Miller, 371 N.C. 266 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)

Objective, reasonable interpretation—robbery by back seat passenger—A police officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to briefly detain defendant for questioning where: (1) it was 4:00 a.m.; (2) the vehicle was stopped in the road with no turn signal on; (3) there were only two people sitting in the car, one in the driver's seat and the other directly behind him in the back seat; (4) defendant (sitting behind the driver) appeared to be pulling some sort of toboggan or ski mask down over his face until he saw the officer and pushed it back up; (5) when the officer asked whether the occupants were okay, each said yes, but the driver made a hand motion at his neck area; (6) after the officer drove into the store parking lot and waited for an additional thirty seconds, the vehicle still did not move or display a turn signal; (7) after defendant got out of the car, the driver was edging forward and about to leave defendant, who he had just said was his brother, on the side of the road on a cold, wet night; (8) when the officer again asked whether everything was okay, the driver shook his head "no" while defendant said everything was fine; and (9) after the officer confronted defendant with the fact that the driver had shaken his head "no," the driver quickly stated that everything was okay. The Court of Appeals erroneously placed undue weight on the officer's subjective interpretation of the facts rather than focusing on how an objective, reasonable officer would view them. State v. Nicholson, 371 N.C. 284 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

—prosecutor's closing arguments—defenant's decision not to present mitigating evidence or arguments—The prosecutor's remarks in a capital sentencing were not so grossly improper that the trial court should have intervened ex mero motu where he commented on defendant's decision not to present mitigating evidence or closing arguments. The thrust of the argument was an admonition to the jury to make its decision based on the facts and the law presented in the case. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Capital—proportionality—aggravating circumstances supported by record—sentence not result of passion, prejudice or arbitrary factors—not disproportionate to similar cases capital—proportionality—aggravating circumstances supported by record—sentence not result of passion, prejudice or aribtrary factors—not disproportionate to similar cases —A sentence of death was not disproportionate where defendant kidnapped a five-year-old child from her home and sexually assaulted her before strangling her and discarding her body under a log in a remote area used for field dressing deer carcasses. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Mitigating circumstance—mental or emotional disturbance-intellectual disability—The trial court erred in a capital sentencing proceeding by not submitting the mitigating circumstance of impaired capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. The trial court has no discretion in determining whether to submit a mitigating circumstance when substantial evidence is submitting support the circumstance and the issue does not hinge on whether the defendant was under the influence of a mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the killing.In this case, the record contained ample evidence supporting the admission of the circumstance. State v. Rodriguez, 371 N.C. 295 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Anal penetration—evidence sufficient to submit to jury—The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to submit to the jury the issue of defendant's guilt of sexual offense, as well as the aggravating circumstance related to a sexual offense, based upon a theory of anal penetration. State v. McNeill, 371 N.C. 198 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Out-of-state trust—beneficiary residing in N.C.—minimum contacts—Where the N.C. Department of Revenue taxed the income of The Kimberly Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust-which was created in New York and governed by the laws of New York-pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 105-160.2 solely based on the North Carolina residence of the beneficiaries during tax years 2005 through 2008, the Trust did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of North Carolina to satisfy the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the N.C. Constitution. Therefore, N.C.G.S. § 105-160.2 was unconstitutional as applied to collect the disputed income taxes from the Trust. Kaestner 1992 Family Tr. v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue, 371 N.C. 133 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)