Harassment Cases

Ineffective assistance of counsel speedy trial venue Evid.R. 803(6) business records hearsay trial strategy sufficiency of evidence manifest weight of evidence making a false alarm aggravated menacing telecommunications harassment Evid.R. 404(B) other acts evidence. - Defendant's convictions for making a false alarm, aggravated menacing, and telecommunications harassment were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defense counsel was not ineffective for not objecting (1) on speedy trial grounds where the case was timely brought to trial (2) to subpoenaed business records where the records were authenticated and properly admitted under Evid.R. 803(6) and (3) to hearsay testimony where the decision not to object was a trial strategy. Venue was properly established. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other acts testimony because it was admitted for the purpose of establishing the defendant's identity the city's failure to give formal notice of its intent to use other acts evidence under Evid.R 404(B) was not reversible error where there was no bad faith and the testimony to which the defendant objected was disclosed in a police report prior to trial.

Whether an individual may bring a claim under the North Carolina Constitution for a school board's deliberate indifference to continual student harassment.

Whether an individual may bring a claim under the North Carolina Constitution for a school board's deliberate indifference to continual student harassment.

Summary judgment prima facie case sexual harassment gender discrimination retaliation. The trial court did not err in granting the appellees' motion for summary judgment because the appellant did not establish a prima facie case for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, or retaliation.

Immunity of political subdivision employee judgment on the pleadings reverse racial discrimination R.C. 2744.03(A) R.C. 2744.09. Plaintiff's complaint for claims of reverse racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation contained sufficient allegations for the liability of defendant political subdivision employee pursuant to the exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(a) and (b). The trial court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.