North Carolina § 7A-31 - Discretionary review by the Supreme Court.

§ 7A-31. Discretionary review by the Supreme Court.

In any cause in which appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals, including any cause heard while the Court of Appeals was sitting en banc, except a cause appealed from the North Carolina Industrial Commission, the North Carolina State Bar pursuant to G.S. 84-28, the Property Tax Commission pursuant to G.S. 105-345, the Board of State Contract Appeals pursuant to G.S. 143-135.9, the Commissioner of Insurance pursuant to G.S. 58-2-80 or G.S. 58-65-131(c), a court-martial pursuant to G.S. 127A-62, a motion for appropriate relief, or valuation of exempt property pursuant to G.S. 7A-28, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, on motion of any party to the cause or on its own motion, certify the cause for review by the Supreme Court, either before or after it has been determined by the Court of Appeals. A cause appealed to the Court of Appeals from any of the administrative bodies listed in the preceding sentence may be certified in similar fashion, but only after determination of the cause in the Court of Appeals. The effect of such certification is to transfer the cause from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court for review by the Supreme Court. If the cause is certified for transfer to the Supreme Court before its determination in the Court of Appeals, review is not had in the Court of Appeals but the cause is forthwith transferred for review in the first instance by the Supreme Court. If the cause is certified for transfer to the Supreme Court after its determination by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reviews the decision of the Court of Appeals. In causes subject to certification under subsection (a) of this section, certification may be made by the Supreme Court before determination of the cause by the Court of Appeals when in the opinion of the Supreme Court any of the following apply: The subject matter of the appeal has significant public interest. The cause involves legal principles of major significance to the jurisprudence of the State. Delay in final adjudication is likely to result from failure to certify and thereby cause substantial harm. The work load of the courts of the appellate division is such that the expeditious administration of justice requires certification. The subject matter of the appeal is important in overseeing the jurisdiction and integrity of the court system. In causes subject to certification under subsection (a) of this section, certification may be made by the Supreme Court after determination of the cause by the Court of Appeals when in the opinion of the Supreme Court any of the following apply: The subject matter of the appeal has significant public interest. The cause involves legal principles of major significance to the jurisprudence of the State. The decision of the Court of Appeals appears likely to be in conflict with a decision of the Supreme Court. The procedure for certification by the Supreme Court on its own motion, or upon petition of a party, shall be prescribed by rule of the Supreme Court. Except in courts-martial and motions within the purview of G.S. 7A-28, the State may move for certification for review of any criminal cause, but only after determination of the cause by the Court of Appeals. Interlocutory determinations by the Court of Appeals, including orders remanding the cause for a new trial or for other proceedings, shall be certified for review by the Supreme Court only upon a determination by the Supreme Court that failure to certify would cause a delay in final adjudication which would probably result in substantial harm. History (1967, c. 108, s. 1; 1969, c. 1044; 1975, c. 555; 1977, c. 711, s. 5; 1981, c. 470, s. 2; 1981 (Reg. Sess., 1982), c. 1224, s. 17; c. 1253, s. 1; 1983, c. 526, s. 3; c. 761, s. 189; 2010-193, s. 19; 2016-125, 4th Ex. Sess., s. 22(d); 2017-7, s. 3.) Cross References. - As to jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review, when authorized by law, direct appeals from a final order or decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, see N.C. Const., Art. IV, § 12(1). Editor's Note. - The reference to G.S. 143-135.9 in subsection (a) of this section appears to be in error. G.S. 143-135.10 et seq., which were repealed by Session Laws 1987, c. 847, s. 5, related to the former Board of State Contract Appeals. Session Laws 2010-193, s. 23 provides: "Prosecutions for offenses committed before the effective date of this act are not abated or affected by this act, and the statutes that would be applicable but for this act remain applicable to those prosecutions." Session Laws 2016-125, 4th Ex Sess., s. 25, is a severability clause. Effect of Amendments. - Session Laws 2010-193, s. 19, effective December 1, 2010, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date, in the first paragraph in subsection (a), in the first sentence, substituted "the Commissioner of Insurance pursuant to G.S. 58-2-80, a court-martial pursuant to G.S. 127A-62, a motion for appropriate relief, or valuation" for "or the Commissioner of Insurance pursuant to G.S. 58-2-80, or a motion for appropriate relief or valuation," and in the last paragraph, inserted "courts-martial and." Session Laws 2016-125, 4th Ex. Sess., s. 22(d), effective December 16, 2016, in the first sentence of subsection (a), inserted "including any cause heard while the Court of Appeals was sitting en banc" and "or G.S. 58-65-131(c)". Session Laws 2017-7, s. 3, effective April 26, 2017, substituted "Supreme Court any of the following apply:" for "Supreme Court" in subsection (b); substituted "public interest" for "public interest, or" in subdivision (b)(1); substituted "of the State" for "of the State, or" in subdivision (b)(2); substituted "substantial harm" for "substantial harm, or" in subdivision (b)(3); added subdivision (b)(5); substituted "Supreme Court any of the following apply:" for "Supreme Court:" in subsection (c); substituted "public interest" for "public interest, or" in subdivision (c)(1); and substituted "jurisprudence of the State" for "jurisprudence of the State, or" in subdivision (c)(2). Legal Periodicals. - For note discussing the right to counsel on discretionary appeal, see 53 N.C.L. Rev. 560 (1974). For 1984 survey of appellate procedure, "Appellate Rule 16(b) and New Requirements for Appeals of Rights," see 63 N.C.L. Rev. 1074 (1985). For recent development: " 'Deference Does Not by Definition Preclude Relief': The Impact of Miller-El v. Dretke on Batson Review in North Carolina Capital Appeals," see 84 N.C. L. Rev. 1328 (2006). For article, "No Brothers Allowed: How Expanding a Juvenile's Miranda Rights Backfired on a North Carolina Sheriff's Department," 89 N.C.L. Rev. 1A (2011). For article, "What Exactly Is a 'Substantial Constitutional Question' for Purposes of Appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court?," see 33 Campbell L. Rev. 211 (2011).