North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

G.S. § 15-144.2(b) requires that an indictment for a sex offense against a child victim name the child. An indictment alleging that defendant committed a sexual offense with a child by an adult against “Victim #1” was insufficient under the ...

Our Court of Appeals reversed an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress. We affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision (The trial court’s findings regarding defendant’s excessive speed (80 in a 65-mph zone), his abrupt unsafe movement almost resulting in a ...

Although defendant did not preserve for appeal the issue of whether lifetime satellite-based monitoring constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, since the state conceded such error, our Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion when ...

  After respondent was involuntarily committed, her second statutory examination was conducted by a psychologist, despite the fact that G.S. § 122C-266(a) requires the examination to be conducted by a physician. Respondent failed to raise this issue at her hearing ...

Even though the prosecutor did not provide defendant with the trial calendar contemplated by G.S. § 7A-49.4(e) at least 10 working days before trial, since defendant’s trial had been scheduled months earlier – giving him ample time to prepare – ...

  The mere act of an armed kidnapper turning his back, without more, is not a conscious, willful action on the part of the kidnapper to assure that his victim is released in a place of safety. We find no ...

Although, during his closing argument, defense counsel may have admitted an element of the offense of assault on a female, he did not expressly concede the crime charged or all the other elements of the charged crime. Accordingly, defendant is ...

Defendant entitled to a new trial when the trial court failed to properly advise defendant of the consequences of waiving counsel and where defendant did not engage in conduct that was of a combative or dilatory nature that would result ...

Naming the victim as “Sears Roebuck and Company” in a larceny indictment was sufficient to impart that the victim was a corporation capable of owning property. We find no error in defendant’s conviction for felonious larceny. Defendant was indicted for ...

  The respondent-mother and her boyfriend complied with their DSS plans, and there was no evidence that the mother had acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected right to parent. Therefore, the record does not support the trial court’s order that ...