The Court of Appeals found no error. The trial evidence supported an inference that Spencer knew the store and employee schedules, positioned himself for a private attack, and waited for the victims to leave. Evidence that he changed clothes, misled his girlfriend, and disposed of the weapon supported flight even though he later appeared near officers. The evidence also did not require a second-degree murder instruction.
The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial. Allowing thirteen jurors to deliberate violated both the governing statute and the North Carolina Constitution’s twelve-juror guarantee. The judge’s mixed instruction to restart but await directions to continue or begin was not the clear, unequivocal safeguard the law requires. The error was both structural in character and prejudicial, so the court did not reach the sentencing issue.
The Court of Appeals found no error. Counsel did not concede guilt to the Pender County charges; the argument attempted to connect incriminating statements to different allegations and focus the jury on the State’s burden. The on-record discussion showed Benson knowingly accepted that strategy. The court also held that the substantial evidence of guilt defeated any showing of Strickland prejudice.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Rule 60 relief. The trial court investigated the circumstances, assessed credibility, considered the available Rule 60 grounds, and could find that the record did not establish a void judgment or extraordinary circumstances. The appellate court emphasized its deferential abuse-of-discretion review and declined to substitute its credibility judgment for the trial court’s.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Although evidence supported some findings about the witnesses’ conduct, the supported findings did not show a flagrant constitutional violation that irreparably prejudiced Cuadra’s preparation of his defense with no available remedy other than dismissal. The case was remanded for further proceedings that may include a new trial; a concurrence emphasized the availability of lesser sanctions such as a mistrial.
The published panel reversed and ordered enforcement of the agreed Michigan forum. Because the subcontract involved interstate commerce, the Federal Arbitration Act applied and preempted North Carolina’s contrary forum restriction. General equitable concerns and efficiency could not override the FAA’s command that arbitration agreements be enforced according to their terms.
The published opinion remanded for the trial court to determine whether counsel performed deficiently and, if so, whether those deficiencies deprived the mother of a fair hearing. The existing appellate record did not permit the Court of Appeals to resolve the fact-sensitive ineffective-assistance questions itself. A separate concurrence elaborated on the standards the trial court should use on remand.