Most Important Opinions

1. Criminal Practice – Second-Degree Murder – High-Speed Chase – Evidence – Shoplifting Spree – Malice — Driving Without a License – Post-Accident Conduct – Jury Instructions 

   State v. Rollins Defendant had been shoplifting before the high-speed chase that ended in a fatal crash. Evidence of the shoplifting spree was admissible to explain why defendant was trying so aggressively to evade the officers chasing him. The voluminous and organized nature of the shoplifting expedition explained why defendant was driving in the manner that he was for purposes of the malice element of second-degree murder.

2. Criminal Practice – Retrial – First Trial’s Transcript – Denial – New Trial 

   State v. Tyson When defendant’s first trial ended in a hung jury and mistrial, the trial court ordered an immediate re-trial, rejecting defendant’s request for a transcript of the first trial. Although defendant argued he needed the transcript to effectively cross-examine the state’s witnesses, the trial court’s ruling – that the prospect of a witness changing his testimony was mere speculation – would apply to any case and makes no determination why defendant has no need for a transcript in this particular case, especially in light of the fact that the state’s case rested entirely on the victim’s identification of defendant as the perpetrator.

3. Real Property – Eminent Domain — Civil Practice – Class Action – Certification Denied – Winston-Salem Northern Beltway – Map Act 

   Beroth Oil Co. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation In preparation for a proposed northern beltway around Winston-Salem, the N.C. Department of Transportation has placed many tracts of land in regulatory limbo – the DOT is not yet buying most of the land, but it is restricting the owners’ ability to use the land. Given the uniqueness of land and the variety of uses to which the affected owners have put or may wish to put their land, the owners do not form a class within the meaning of N.C. R. Civ. P. 23.

4. Criminal Practice – Statutory Sex Offense – Evidence – Other Bad Acts – Second Victim 

   State v. Houseright Even though, when testifying about events at the Rosemont Avenue address, victim B.F. testified that she and defendant had sexual intercourse but did not specifically testify as to an act that would constitute a sex offense, B.F. also testified that, preceding each incident of sexual intercourse, defendant digitally penetrated her. This testimony was broad enough to encompass the incident at the Rosemont Avenue address. The trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss one of the counts of statutory sex offense.