State v. Augustine

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Augustine

780 S.E.2d 552, 368 N.C. 594

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 18, 2015

Docket139PA13

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 780 S.E.2d 552 (State v. Augustine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Augustine, 780 S.E.2d 552, 368 N.C. 594 (N.C. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The trial court granted respondents’ motions for appropriate relief under the Racial Justice Act, N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-2010 to -2012 (2009) and N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-2010 to -2012 (2011 & Supp. 2012). After careful review, we conclude that the error recognized in this Court’s Order in State v. Robinson, _ N.C. _, _S.E.2d _ (2015) (411A94-5), infected the trial court’s decision, including its use of issue preclusion, in these cases. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is vacated. Furthermore, the trial court erred when it joined these three cases for an evidentiary hearing. These cases are therefore remanded to the senior resident superior court judge of Cumberland County for reconsideration of respondents’ motions for appropriate relief. Cf. Gen. R. Pract. Super. & Dist. Cts. 25(4), 2016 Ann. R. N.C. 22.

We express no opinion on the merits of respondents’ motions for appropriate relief at this juncture. On remand, the trial court should address petitioner’s constitutional and statutory challenges pertaining to the Act. In any new hearings on the merits, the trial court may, in the interest of justice, consider additional statistical studies presented by the parties. The trial court may also, in its discretion, appoint an expert under N.C. R. Evid. 706 to conduct a quantitative and qualitative study, unless such a study has already been commissioned pursuant to this Court’s Order in Robinson, in which case the trial court may consider that study. If the trial court appoints an expert under Rule 706, the Court hereby orders the Administrative Office of the Courts to make funds available for that purpose.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 15th day of December, 2015.

s/Jackson. J.

For the Court

Justice BEASLEY and Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of these cases.

*595 WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this 18th day of December, 2015

CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER Clerk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The trial court granted respondents’ motions for appropriate relief under the Racial Justice Act, N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-2010 to -2012 (2009) and N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-2010 to -2012 (2011 & Supp. 2012). After careful review, we conclude that the error recognized in this Court’s Order in State v. Robinson, _ N.C. _, _S.E.2d _ (2015) (411A94-5), infected the trial court’s decision, including its use of issue preclusion, in these cases. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is vacated. Furthermore, the trial court erred when it joined these three cases for an evidentiary hearing. These cases are therefore remanded to the senior resident superior court judge of Cumberland County for reconsideration of respondents’ motions for appropriate relief. Cf. Gen. R. Pract. Super. & Dist. Cts. 25(4), 2016 Ann. R. N.C. 22.

We express no opinion on the merits of respondents’ motions for appropriate relief at this juncture. On remand, the trial court should address petitioner’s constitutional and statutory challenges pertaining to the Act. In any new hearings on the merits, the trial court may, in the interest of justice, consider additional statistical studies presented by the parties. The trial court may also, in its discretion, appoint an expert under N.C. R. Evid. 706 to conduct a quantitative and qualitative study, unless such a study has already been commissioned pursuant to this Court’s Order in Robinson, in which case the trial court may consider that study. If the trial court appoints an expert under Rule 706, the Court hereby orders the Administrative Office of the Courts to make funds available for that purpose.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 15th day of December, 2015.

s/Jackson. J.

For the Court

Justice BEASLEY and Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of these cases.

*595 WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this 18th day of December, 2015

CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER Clerk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

780 S.E.2d 552, 368 N.C. 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-augustine-nc-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack