Court Opinion

ID: 9854091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:00:37.749329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:55.110477
License: Public Domain

Justice HUDSON
dissenting.
I agree entirely with the bulk of the reasoning and analysis outlined in the majority opinion and particularly with its conclusion that N.C.G.S. § 115C-431(c) is constitutional on its face. However, I would decline to revisit the trial court’s charge to the jury, an issue to which the majority concedes that “counsel did not object or assign error.” There is no showing in the record or briefs before us that N.C.G.S. § 115C-431(c) was not properly applied in this case. For that reason, I would affirm the Court of Appeals decision finding no error in the trial court’s entry of judgment based upon the jury’s verdict. As such, I respectfully dissent.
In our order allowing the County Commission’s petition for discretionary review, we specifically limited our review to whether “the statutory framework for resolving school funding disputes between the county board of education and the county board of commissioners [is] constitutional,” and, if so, whether it was properly applied in this case. Likewise, as noted by the County Commission in its brief to this Court, “Legal error is presented; the relevant facts are not disputed.” None of the arguments presented on appeal — before the Court of Appeals or this Court, by the County Commission, the School Board, or any of the amici curiae who submitted briefs — challenged, contested, or otherwise found fault with either the trial court’s instructions to the jury or with the “amount of money necessary to maintain a system of free public schools” in Beaufort County, as determined by the jury. The sole basis of the appeal was the constitutionality of section 115C-431(c), both facially and as applied.
I recognize that this Court does have “rarely used general supervisory authority” to “consider questions which are not properly presented according to our rules.” State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19, 26, *515215 S.E.2d 589, 594 (1975) (citations omitted); compare Bailey v. State, 353 N.C. 142, 158 n.2, 540 S.E.2d 313, 323 n.2 (2000) (recognizing the Court’s “constitutional supervisory powers over inferior courts” but declining to exercise that authority to allow a nonparty’s petition to be heard, as the issue presented was not an “exceptional circumstance,” nor was the nonparty subjected to “financial obligations imposed by order of a trial court” as in other cases) with In re Brownlee, 301 N.C. 532, 547-48, 272 S.E.2d 861, 870-71 (1981) (electing to “treat the papers which have ben filed [sic] ... as a motion calling upon the court to exercise its supervisory powers” and allow a county to appeal the order in a juvenile proceeding because of the county’s “significant interest in the outcome,” including possible future expenditures). However, I disagree that the trial court’s instructions to the jury here constitute the type of “exceptional circumstance” that calls for such action.
As noted by the majority opinion, we “will not hesitate to exercise . . . [that] authority when necessary to promote the expeditious administration of justice.” Stanley, 288 N.C. at 26, 215 S.E.2d at 594 (emphasis added). In State v. Ellis, we exercised the authority to review a Court of Appeals decision on a motion for appropriate relief in a noncapital case, finding that such action “to review upon appeal any decision of the courts below,” N.C. Const. art. IV, § 12, was “particularly appropriate when . . . prompt and definitive resolution of an issue is necessary to ensure the uniform administration of North Carolina criminal statutes,” 361 N.C. 200, 205, 639 S.E.2d 425, 428-29 (2007) (emphases added). Likewise, although the majority points to In re Brownlee as an analogous case presenting “a novel issue of great import,” we invoked our authority in Brownlee to allow the county to be a party to an appeal from a judgment that compelled the county to spend tens of thousands of dollars even though it was not a party to the case. 301 N.C. at 548, 272 S.E.2d at 870. We did not, however, create the county’s arguments for it; rather, we simply reviewed the arguments the county had already presented to the Court.
Here, by acting ex mero motu to consider the trial judge’s instructions to the jury and, by extension, the amount of the award fixed by the jury, the majority acts contrary to our own admonition that “ [i]t is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant,” as doing so leaves “an appellee . . . without notice of the basis upon which an appellate court might rule.” Viar v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005) (per curiam) *516(citation omitted); see also Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 200, 657 S.E.2d 361, 366-67 (2008) (holding that one factor to consider with respect to noncompliance with appellate rules is “whether and to what extent review on the merits would frustrate the adversarial process” (citations omitted)). A thorough review of this record and the briefs and arguments presented by-all parties to this appeal clearly illustrates that, not only has the County Commission never objected to either the trial judge’s instructions to the jury or to the amount awarded by the jury, neither has the School Board ever articulated an argument in support of the same. To step in and set aside a jury verdict that has not been challenged is indeed to “frustrate the adversarial process” through this decision.
Moreover, while the majority maintains that the trial judge “did not have the legal standard which we articulate today to guide him in his consideration of the case,” State v. McDowell, 310 N.C. 61, 74, 310 S.E.2d 301, 310 (1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1165, 90 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1986), I disagree. In McDowell, a capital case, we undertook extensive analysis of existing case law to determine the proper standard on which to review the State’s failure to disclose nonrequested evidence, noting that the disclosure requirement turned on the “materiality” of the evidence, a “somewhat elusive gauge” on which the leading United States Supreme Court case, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976), was less than clear as to the meaning of the term, and silent as to whether the trial judge or the jury should decide the question. McDowell, 310 N.C. at 69-73, 310 S.E.2d at 306-09. Both defendant and the State focused their arguments on appeal on the materiality standard, and whether it was properly applied by the trial judge. After articulating in plain terms what the standard should be, we remanded to the trial court to reconsider defendant’s motion for appropriate relief in light of that standard— one that had not previously existed in our case law. Id. at 75, 310 S.E.2d at 310.
By contrast, the legal standard applied by the trial judge here clearly existed at the time of the trial and jury verdict: the plain language of section 115C431(c) itself articulates the standard to determine “what amount of money is needed from sources under the control of the board of county commissioners to maintain a system of free public schools.” Had the County Commission found the instructions to the jury on the definition of the word “needed” objectionable, the County Commission could have made that issue part of its “unconstitutional as applied” challenge to the statute. Instead, in its argu*517ments on appeal, the County Commission focused primarily on its facial challenge and relied on Board of Education v. Board of County Commissioners, 240 N.C. 118, 81 S.E.2d 256 (1954), a case that is inapposite to the issue presented here. Even more telling, the County Commission did not object to the jury instructions at trial and, under our appellate rules, thereby waived any objections. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“A party may not assign as error any portion of the jury charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly that to which he objects and the grounds of his objection[.]”).
There has been no showing by the County Commission or any other party that the amount awarded by the jury here was excessive or that it went beyond the restrictive definition of “needed” articulated in the majority opinion. Indeed, the amount awarded by the jury, $10,200,000, was ultimately less than the $12,106,304 requested by the School Board, and much closer to the $9,434,217 originally budgeted by the County Commission. This amount is not the type of “runaway verdict” that suggests the jury somehow overstepped its role, or disregarded the trial judge’s instructions, but one indicating that the jury took seriously its responsibilities and awarded a seemingly reasonable figure that comports with the cost and expense projections presented by the parties at trial.
The County Commission failed to present any persuasive argument or evidence that section 115C-431(c) is unconstitutional as applied here, and this Court should not unilaterally act to create its case. Viar, 359 N.C. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361. In my view, the majority’s decision to remand for a new trial unnecessarily delays and prolongs the dispute between the parties, already ongoing since the 2006-07 fiscal year, in a manner contrary to the stated purpose of invoking our general supervisory authority to contribute to “prompt and definitive resolution of an issue.” Ellis, 361 N.C. at 205, 639 S.E.2d at 428-29. Perhaps even more significantly, this disposition runs entirely counter to the clear intention of the General Assembly that the statutory resolution process outlined in section 115C-431(c) be carried out promptly. See N.C.G.S. § 115C-431(c) (in addition to other provisions for an immediate hearing, specifying that, “When a jury trial is demanded, the cause shall be set for the first succeeding term of the superior court in the county, and shall take precedence over all other business of the court.”).
This case does not present the type of “unusual [or] exceptional circumstance []” in which we should invoke our “rarely used general *518supervisory authority” to “consider questions which are not properly presented according to our rules.” Stanley, 288 N.C. at 26, 215 S.E.2d at 594. Nor does setting aside the jury award address any important constitutional questions or otherwise “prevent manifest injustice to a party.” N.C. R. App. P. 2; see State v. Barden, 356 N.C. 316, 332, 572 S.E.2d 108, 120 (2002) (invoking Rule 2 to “address defendant’s contentions” “because these issues raise important constitutional questions in the context of a capital case), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1040, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1074 (2003).
For these reasons, I would follow the majority opinion’s rationale as to the facial constitutionality of N.C.G.S. § 15C-431(c) and further hold that the statute is constitutional as applied in this case. I would decline to suspend the rules and consider an argument not before us on appeal, and I would affirm in its entirety the Court of Appeals decision finding no error in the trial court’s entry of judgment on the jury verdict. I respectfully dissent.
Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON joins in this dissenting opinion.