Most Important Opinions

1. Criminal Practice – DWI – Constitutional – Attorneys – Effective Assistance – Opening & Closing Arguments – Prior Offenses – Stipulation 

   State v. Rouse Even though, in his opening and closing statements, defense counsel referred to the arresting officers as “very good officers,” counsel did so in the context of arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Counsel could have reasonably made a tactical decision to refrain from challenging the officers’ general professionalism and competence, while still encouraging the jury to find that the officers arrested defendant on May 23, 2010 as a result of their inadvertent mistakes.

2. Prisons & Jails – Tort/Negligence – STCA – Tight Handcuffs 

   Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.

3. Labor & Employment – Public Employees — Settlement Agreement – Breach of Contract Claim – Damages – Job Reclassification 

   Pickney v. Department of Transportation Even though the parties’ settlement agreement provided that plaintiff could “request a job reallocation or pay grade increase” and that defendant would “cooperate with such a request,” the settlement agreement did not provide plaintiff with any guarantee that he would actually receive a job reallocation or pay grade increase upon request. Even if plaintiff proved that defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to cooperate with his request for a second job reallocation, plaintiff’s evidence provided no basis upon which the trial court could have properly calculated damages.

4. Domestic Relations – Separation Agreement – Oral – Unenforceable 

   Marks v. Marks Where the parties were separated and intended to live separate and apart forever when they entered into an oral contract, and where the contract involves payments for spousal support and from the sale of marital or divisible property, the contract was governed by G.S. § 52-10.1. Because the contract was not in writing and acknowledged by both parties before a certifying officer as defined in G.S. § 52-10(b), it was unenforceable.