North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Since defendants’ easement over plaintiffs’ property does not require that the easement remain “open,” plaintiffs are entitled to erect a gate on the easement if a gate is necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of plaintiffs’ servient estate, provided the gate ...

The witness intimidation indictment alleged that the “intimidation consisted of [defendant] telling Darryl Derstine to tell Nicholas Ramos that he would have Nicholas Ramos deported if he testified against the Defendant.” Although no evidence tended to show defendant expressly told ...

Even though our caselaw has not defined “value” in the context of G.S. § 14-100(a) (obtaining property by false pretenses), our caselaw has defined the term in the context of property crimes to be synonymous with “fair market value.” We ...

Defendant did not give notice that he intended to present the affirmative defense of self-defense, he waited until the day after the charge conference to request a jury instruction on self-defense, and he failed to object when given the opportunity ...

Our Supreme Court has already evaluated the strength of the evidence in this case, and it did so while applying a “reasonable possibility” standard of review. In light of our Supreme Court’s interpretation of the evidence, any alleged error does ...

Although the defendant-driver was stopped because of a broken taillight, the traffic stop was not unnecessarily extended. One of defendant’s passengers, Antoine Bishop, had an outstanding arrest warrant, and he was armed; accordingly, the detective who initiated the stop had ...

Where the castle doctrine provides immunity from “criminal liability” but not immunity from prosecution, and where, as here, there are fact questions concerning the applicability of the castle doctrine, defendant was not entitled to have the trial judge, rather than ...

Where a sheriff’s lieutenant stopped defendant for a seatbelt infraction and did not articulate any reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity, the lieutenant’s request to search defendant unreasonably extended the duration of the traffic stop. We reverse the trial court’s ...

Where victim Tucker’s body was discovered while police were investigating the disappearance of victim Rippy, evidence of Rippy’s disappearance was relevant in defendant’s trial for the murder of Tucker. We find no error in defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder. Relevance ...

Though defendant was indicted for first-degree rape and sexual assault—both requiring proof of serious injury—he was convicted of first-degree rape and second-degree sexual assault (which does not require proof of serious injury). Even if these verdicts are inconsistent, they are ...