North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Since defendant was represented by competent counsel, had ample time to consider and discuss his guilty plea with his attorney, and was thoroughly questioned by the trial court about his decision to plead and the effects of his decision to ...

  In light of defendant’s extensive history of mental illness, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and mild neurocognitive disorder, his seven prior forensic evaluations with divergent findings on his competency, the five-month gap between his competency hearing and his ...

Based on the structure of G.S. § 14-72(b)(6), our Supreme Court’s definition of the elements of habitual larceny, and the availability to defendants of information regarding whether they had or waived counsel when they obtained prior larceny convictions, we hold ...

  Since the forfeiture of defendant’s bond was not final when the appellee-sureties filed their motion to strike the forfeiture, G.S. § 15A-544.5 was the exclusive avenue for relief from forfeiture, and § 15A-544.5 does not include defendant’s deportation as ...

  Even though there was evidence that petitioner’s MRI machine was superior to the machine that respondent Duke University Health System would use, it was within the respondent-agency’s discretion not to consider this criterion. We reverse the administrative law judge’s ...

  When determining whether a mortgagee may foreclose under a power-of-sale clause in an instrument, the court may consider only the factors set out in G.S. § 45-21.16(d) and certain legal defenses. The court had no authority to consider obligors’ ...

  When a trial judge asked two prosecutors from the district attorney’s office how long they had known their essential witnesses was unavailable on the day a case was called for trial, respondent may have been ignorant, as he claimed, ...

  Even though some of the respondent-mother’s progress on her case plan, such as stable housing and transportation, was owing to her new boyfriend, the case plan does not and cannot require that she alone be responsible for providing her ...

After the respondent-mother moved to Virginia and “Jane’s” custodians moved with her to Tennessee, a Tennessee court assumed jurisdiction over this case, which arose as a neglect case under G.S. Chapter 7B. The North Carolina trial court erred when it ...

An eDiscovery order—permitting plaintiffs’ agent to access defendants’ computer system, and not permitting defendants to review many materials before they are turned over to plaintiffs—does not provide sufficient protection as to defendants’ attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. We vacate ...