A 1999 Caldwell County murder case has prompted the N.C. Court of Appeals to issue a new ruling that a defendant who is not given the chance to confront witnesses against him in the sentencing phase of a non-capital (no death penalty) case has had his constitutional rights violated. The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel contends that the “confrontation clause” should apply to the case of David Franklin Hurt, whose case has been moving from trial court to appellate court to N.C. Supreme Court for 11 years. The latest ruling means a new trial for Hurt.

In other opinions released this morning:

  • A unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a lower-court ruling in favor of Boone and against plaintiffs challenging the town’s 2006 steep slope and viewshed protection ordinances. But the case prompted a concurring opinion from Judge Barbara Jackson, who is leaving the Appeals Court to take a seat on the N.C. Supreme Court. Jackson’s concurrence notes the following concern:

I write separately to highlight a significant problem I see with [the majority’s] analysis as to the issue of standing.  Specifically, I am concerned with the majority?s assertion that plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue their constitutional claims because their complaint did not allege ?that the subject zoning ordinance amendments will be or have been enforced against property owned by plaintiffs[.]?  I think that a requirement that the ordinance be enforced before a property owner may challenge it could allow a municipality to evade statutorily-mandated procedural safeguards by waiting to enforce an ordinance until two months after its adoption, thereby immunizing itself pursuant to the statute of limitations.

  • A unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a lower-court ruling that a couple claiming injuries in a 2006 Greensboro car crash could file suit after the three-year statute of limitations had run out because the defendant was an active member of the military. The defendant in the case had argued that so-called “tolling” of the statute of limitations was designed to protect only servicemen and women, not civilians suing members of the military.
  • A unanimous three-judge panel wants a trial court to take another look at the costs and punitive damages awarded in a negligence suit filed in connection with a 2004 Charlotte city bus crash. Appellate judges upheld the lower-court ruling against the city and its bus service, but the three-judge panel said the lower court erred in its documentation and consideration of rules linked to the money awarded to plaintiff Lynda Springs.