State v. Phillips Since defendant did not object at trial when the trial court referred to the prosecuting witness as “the victim,” he is only entitled to plain-error review. Considering the fact that our courts have on many occasions said that the use of the term “victim” in jury instructions is not an expression of opinion, and considering the horrifying facts of the assault in the instant case, we can discern no prejudicial error as a result of the trial court’s use of the word “victim” to identify the state’s prosecuting witness during its jury instructions.
State v. Hill Even though the carrying-a-concealed-weapon charge was based on a razor blade stuck to the underside of a table in a day room to which defendant’s access was non-exclusive and out of his control, he had regularly scheduled access to the day room, he had been seated at the table under which the blade was discovered on the same day it was discovered, the blade was one of two taken from a pencil sharpener, and the other blade was found in defendant’s cell.
State v. Leach : Although the defendant-prisoner alleged that his Mutual Agreement Parole Program contract required his release if he complied with the conditions set out in that document, he failed to attach the complete MAPP contract to his habeas application.
Redd v. WilcoHess, L.L.C. In a matter of first impression, we hold that G.S. § 1-181.2 supersedes Nunnery v. Baucom, 135 N.C. App. 556, 521 S.E.2d 479 (1999) on the issue of when a jury can have access to an exhibit during deliberations.
Johnson v. Forsyth County G.S. Chapter 126, including the N.C. Whistleblower Act, applies only to state employees and the local employees listed in G.S. § 126-5. Since county board of election employees are not included in the § 126-5 list, they are not covered by the Whistleblower Act.
Hinkle v. Hinkle Where the plaintiff-wife sought an unequal division of marital property, and where both parties raised issues under G.S. § 50-20(c) and presented evidence as to these issues, the trial court should have made findings of fact about the § 50-20(c) issues.
In re Bunch The state argues on appeal that the trial court exceeded its authority when it terminated the sex offender registration requirement for a petitioner who had not been on the N.C. sex offender registry for at least 10 years (on the grounds that petitioner was never required to register in North Carolina in the first place); however, at the trial court level, the state merely stood silent. The state has failed to preserve its arguments for appeal
Johnson v. Robertson Under N.C. R. Evid. 1101, the Rules of Evidence apply “to all actions and proceedings in the courts of this State” and if otherwise provided by statute. Rule 1101 further provides that the Rules of Evidence do not apply in certain proceedings, including preliminary questions of fact, grand jury proceedings, sentencing hearings, probation revocation hearings, and probable cause hearings. Petitioner has cited no other statute that otherwise provides for the application of the Rules of Evidence to hearings pursuant to G.S. § 20-16.2. After reviewing applicable statutes, we hold the Rules of Evidence do not apply to DMV hearings held pursuant to § 20-16.2.
Allred v. Exceptional Landscapes, Inc. Even though G.S. § 97-94(b) appears to give an employee of an uninsured employer the option of suing under the Workers’ Compensation Act or “at law,” and even though the parties believed they were settling the employee’s claim “at law,” since the employee had already filed a claim with the Industrial Commission, the Commission had jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the settlement agreement.
In re I.K. Although the respondent-father once disciplined his teenage stepson with a bull whip, there is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable probability he would use this method of discipline on his young daughter, “Ilka.” Respondent has attended all treatment, parenting classes, and mental health assessments ordered by the court; the evidence indicates he has no problems with anger or impulse control, and he now recognizes that using a bullwhip is not an appropriate form of discipline.