In a split decision issued Tuesday, the N.C. Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court acted appropriately in dismissing a lawsuit filed against former State Treasurer Richard Moore.

The State Employees Association of North Carolina sued in 2008 over a dispute about whether Moore's office had provided public records requested by the group regarding the handling of the state retirement system.

Moore's lawyer argued in Wake Superior Court in June 2008 that the association cannot point to a single specific public record that had been withheld, and Judge James E. Hardin dismissed the suit.

In Tuesday's decision, appeals court Judges Cheri Beasley and Wanda G. Bryant ruled that Hardin was right to dismiss the case, ruling that Moore had fulfilled his obligation under the state's public records law to search his files for documents covered under the request filed by SEANC.

Appeals Court Judge Rick Elmore dissented, writing in a separate opinion that the employees group had shown that Moore had likely withheld records he was legally obligated to provide.

UPDATE: Thomas A. Harris, the chief of staff and general counsel for SEANC, said he will recommend to the group's board that they appeal Tuesday's decision to the N.C. Supreme Court.

"The majority opinion misstates the facts of the case and, as the dissent points out, adds a equirement for maintaining a Public Records Act lawsuit that is not in the law itself," Harris said in an e-mail to Dome.

Moore said: "This news, combined with the other recent news that North Carolina's pension fund was the best performing in the country for this past fiscal year, are nice exclamation points to the end of my 8-year-tenure."

   Comments (0)

The N.C. Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of former state Rep. Thomas E. Wright on three felony counts of obtaining property by false pretenses for taking out a fraudulent bank loan and depositing contributions intended for charity into his personal bank account.

Wright, a Democrat from Wilmington, was sentenced in April 2008 to more than seven years in prison. Earlier, he was kicked out of the N.C. House of Representatives by his peers for ethical violations, becoming the first legislator to suffer that fate since 1880.

In his appeal, Wright, 54, argued the trial judge erred by denying him a motion to delay his court date, by allowing the deputy director of the state Board of Elections to testify about campaign finance violations and in the instructions given to the jurors who convicted him.

The three-judge appeals panel ruled Tuesday that Wright's complaints were without merit and that he "received a fair trial, free from error."

Wright, who currently resides at Pamlico Correctional Institution as Inmate No. 1073692, could not immediately be reached for comment.

THE WHOLE TRUTH: McQueen Campbell is one of 30 witnesses who have been subpoened in the State Board of Elections inquiry into the campaign finance of former Gov. Mike Easley. Campbell had a close relationship with Easley and will figure prominently in the hearings this week. (N&O)

ADD IT UP: In five years, administrative costs at the N.C. School of Science and Mathematics grew 46 percent. The school has added 70 students during that period, and 24 teachers. But it has added only two administrators. Much of the increased administrative expense is in pay raises. (N&O)

WRIGHT APPEAL: Former state Rep. Thomas Wright's appeal of his fraud convictions is scheduled to be heard by the N.C. Court of Appeals next month. The former lawmaker is a prisoner in Pamlico County north of New Bern. (Wilmington Star-News)

I DID IT: A dying inmate is having a hard time convincing the right people he committed a Raleigh murder. Craig Taylor says he, and not Greg Taylor (no relation) killed a woman. Greg Taylor's case recently went before the Innocence Inquiry Commission, which found reason to believe Greg Taylor shouldn't be locked up, partly because Craig Taylor knew specific details about the murder.

But Craig Taylor has confessed to other murders and officials say he is confessing to murders because he is dying. (N&O)

THIRD PARTIES GET ANOTHER SHOT: The state Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a state law that forces third political parties to collect tens of thousands of signatures to get on North Carolina's ballot. But the court's split decision means the case will likely be heard again. (AP)

A LITTLE BIT MORE: Duke Energy has pared down a rate hike request in a compromise with regulators. If the N.C. Utilities Commission agrees, a 7 percent hike would be phased in over two years. (Char-O)

Lawyers for state Sen. Julia Boseman's former partner have asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider a Court of Appeals ruling in the couple's adoption custody case.

Boseman, a Wilmington Democrat, and Melissa Jarrell, were in court over whether Boseman's adoptoin of Jarrell's child was legal. Jarrell, a former softball coach at UNC-Wilmington, had claimed that the adoption was invalid because gays and lesbians should not be permitted to adopt in North Carolina.

A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that Boseman's adoption was legal. Jarrell's lawyers have asked the state's high court to reconsider on several grounds. Because the appeals court was unanimous, Jarrell has not right to appeal and must convince the Supreme Court to hear the case. Such petitions are rarely granted.

   Comments (3)

The lawyer for a Fayetteville amusement machine vendor said in court Wednesday that North Carolina lacks a consistent public policy toward gambling when it allows Cherokee Indians to run video poker machines while banning such gaming everywhere else.

Lawyers for the state and the vendor traded arguments before the state Court of Appeals over the legality of a 2006 state law that made machines illegal except on the Cherokee reservation, west of Asheville. A trial court judge in Wake County overturned the law in February.

The three-member appeals panel grilled vendor attorney Hugh Stevens, asking pointed questions about a federal American Indian gambling law that provides the basis for the state's agreement with the Cherokees that allows the tribe to operate a casino. At several points in the hearing, the judges appeared openly skeptical of Stevens’ position that the state law should be struck down.

   Comments (1)

The N.C. Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that then-Gov. Mike Easley acted unconstitutionally in 2002 when he seized $80 million from the Highway Trust Fund to balance the budget.

The court's decision could restrict what steps governors can take during financial crises.

The majority of the three judge panel, Judge Robert N. Hunter Jr. and Judge Barbara Jackson, ruled that the state constitution does not give the governor authority to take money appropriated for one purpose -- road building, in this case -- and use it for another.  

Judge Linda McGee dissented, saying the majority's decision removes the governor's ability to act quickly in a crisis.

UPDATE: Gov. Beverly Perdue plans to appeal the decision to the N.C. Supreme Court, according to spokeswoman Chrissy Pearson.

Supporters of judicial campaign financing are citing a recent Supreme Court decision.

In a 5-4 decision in Caperton v. Massey, the high court ruled that a West Virginia Supreme Court justice should not have been involved in a case involving a coal-mining executive who spent more than $3 million to help get him elected.

The justice ruled in favor of his campaign donor, overturning a $50 million jury award.

The N.C. Center for Voter Education, which backed North Carolina's public financing for state Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges, said the case was a prime example of the problems with judges raising large sums of money on their own.

"Whether or not judges are actually biased in favor of a litigant who contributes to a campaign isn't the issue. Of more concern is the appearance that justice is for sale," said executive director Damon Circosta.

The center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Caperton asking the Supreme Court to find a due process violation.

Doug Clark says the gay marriage ban is inaccurate.

The Greensboro News-Record columnist writes today that the preamble to the bill incorrectly argues that a 2008 case in the N.C. Court of Appeals could set a legal precedent for gay marriage.

That case, Mason v. Dwinell, involved a child visitation dispute over a lesbian couple who had conceived a child using artificial insemination and signed a parenting agreement. In her decision, Judge Martha Geer wrote that the fact the couple was gay was irrelevant.

The reference to Mason v. Dwinnell in this House bill could be intended to raise alarm. I suspect it also might be someone’s attempt to target Geer, who comes up for re-election next year. Portraying her as a California-liberal kind of judge could provide an avenue for attack by an aggressive conservative challenger (even though Geer was joined in her opinion by conservative Judge Sanford Steelman).

But as Geer and family law expert Suzanne Reynolds told Clark, there's no comparison with cases that have been used as legal "building blocks" to recognize gay marriage in other states. 

"It's not apples and oranges," Geer said. "It's apples and cows."

A bill would let the governor appoint top judges.

Rep. Johnathan Rhyne, a Lincoln County Republican and family law attorney, said he filed the bill to improve the appellate court system.

"It's a recognition that 99 percent of the voting public has no idea who they're voting for," he said.

Under the proposal, a Judicial Nomination Commission would vet potential judges for the N.C. Court of Appeals and the N.C. Supreme Court. They would then forward a list of recommendations to the governor, who would make the appointments.

In many ways, the system would be similar to the one used now for unexpected vacancies, Rhyne said. A difference is that the judges would later face a retention election — essentially an up-or-down vote by the people after they'd been in office for a while.

If they lost, the governor would appoint another judge. 

Rhyne, who served on a commission that looked into the judicial system in the early 1990s, said that the goal is to get better judges.

"Electing judges when the public does not know who they're voting for is like walking down a highway in the dark," he said. "It's dangerous, and you don't need to do that."