Courtroom Weekly: Shots fired, marriage laws challenged on the East Coast

September 19, 2013

by: the State Court Staff

Same-sex marriage licenses, church politics and a police officer charged with manslaughter

Courtroom Weekly The latest and greatest in court cases around the nation In this issue... Featured case News from Pennsylvania News from Texas News from New Hampshire

Featured case Unarmed man killed by police   Court: North Carolina 26th Judicial District By Jong Son In the early morning hours of September 14, 24-year-old, Jonathan Ferrell, crashed his car into some trees in the east part of Charlotte, North Carolina. The crash was severe enough that Ferrell had to climb out the back window to get out of his car. He then stumbled to a nearby home, banged on the door, and begged for help. The homeowner, who became frightened when she was unable to identify the man, called the police, thinking that her home was being invaded. Three police officers soon arrived, at which point Ferrell was described as charging towards them. One officer attempted to tase Ferrell, but when that was unsuccessful, Officer Randall Kerrick opened fire, shooting twelve rounds and striking Ferrell ten times. Ferrell, who had been unarmed at the time of his shooting, was pronounced dead at the scene. Kerrick has been charged with voluntary manslaughter and was released on a $50,000 bond. Judge Ronald L. Chapman of the North Carolina 26th Judicial District scheduled his probable cause hearing for October 7. The Charlotte Police Department issued a statement , which said: “ The evidence revealed that Mr. Ferrell did advance on Officer Kerrick and the investigation showed that the subsequent shooting of Mr. Ferrell was excessive. Our investigation has shown that Officer Kerrick did not have a lawful right to discharge his weapon during this encounter. ” The investigation of Officer Kerrick will be conducted by the Charlotte Police Department, which is the protocol when one of its officers are involved in a shooting. If necessary, the State Bureau of Investigation will become involved, but this seldom occurs. Ferrell, a former football player for Florida A&M University, had recently moved to Charlotte a year ago to be with his fiancé. He had been working two jobs and had hoped to return to school and get a degree in automotive engineering. Ferrell’s brother described him as "a role model. He had so much love in his heart. And he was always concerned about his family." Earl Holmes, Ferrell’s football coach at Florida A&M, responded to the news, stating: "I was saddened when they told me. They told me he was murdered. I said, ‘What? Murder? That doesn’t sound like him. Not the Jonathan I remembered.’ The Jonathan I remembered was a soft-spoken kid, quiet and to himself…. A lot of times bad things happen to good people.”

News from Pennsylvania Judge stops clerk from issuing same-sex marriage licenses   Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court By Matt Latourelle On September 12, Judge Dan Pellegrini, of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ordered Bruce Hayes, the Montgomery County Register of Wills, to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It all began in July, when Hayes announced that he would start handing out same-sex marriage licenses, despite the fact that a 1996 law bans such marriages in Pennsylvania. Hayes justified his decision by pointing to Article 1, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states: "All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which…[is] pursuing their own happiness." Under this principle, Hayes issued 174 marriage licenses to same-sex couples over the summer. The Pennsylvania Department of Health sued Hayes for violating state law, arguing that the issuing the licenses would cause "administrative and legal chaos." On September 4, the case came before Judge Pellegrini, where the main topic was whether or not Hayes had the power in his role as Register of Wills, to decide whether or not to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Pellegrini decided that he did not, ruling: “ Unless and until either the General Assembly repeals or suspends the Marriage Law provisions or a court of competent jurisdiction orders that the law is not to be obeyed or enforced, the Marriage Law in its entirety is to be obeyed and enforced by all Commonwealth public officials. ” The court did not attempt to rule on whether or not the state's marriage laws were legal. Pellegrini explained that even if the ban on same-sex marriage is, in fact, unconstitutional, Hayes cannot change the laws himself. Following the ruling, Hayes stated: “ Regardless of how my particular case is resolved, I believe the case for marriage equality continues to move forward, and I can only hope that my decision helped that effort. ”

News from Texas Breakaway diocese of The Episcopal Church wins Texas Supreme Court appeal   Court: Texas Supreme Court By Alma Cook In a 5-4 decision, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a summary judgment in a property dispute between The Episcopal Church and a breakaway diocese, sending the case back to a lower level court for reconsideration. The dispute began in November 2008, when the majority of clergymen and lay representatives of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth voted to leave The Episcopal Church (TEC) over theological differences. The exodus was led by Reverend Jack Leo Iker, who with other Fort Worth Diocese leaders decided to join the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), a newer member of the international Anglican Communion with more conservative values. The breakaway group, who retained their name and property, was later sued by TEC—and in 2011, Judge John P. Chupp of the 141st District Court ruled against them. They were ordered to "surrender all Diocesan property as well as control of the Diocese Corporation" and "not to hold themselves out as leaders of the Diocese." The ACNA diocesan leadership sought a second opinion from the state supreme court and presented oral arguments in October 2012. Now, almost a year later, they won their appeal. Said Iker after about the ruling, “ We rejoice in today's ruling by the Texas Supreme Court overturning the summary judgment in favor of The Episcopal Church…[W]hile today's opinions are not a final victory, they indicate that a final victory is only a matter of time. ” Though TEC expressed disappointment at the ruling, Katie Sherrod, spokeswoman for the TEC-affiliated diocese of Fort Worth, was not convinced that this decision indicated a particular future outcome. She told The Christian Post that it was neither a win nor a loss for her diocese: “ It would have been nice to have a definitive decision…But our congregations have always concentrated on their ministries and mission, and they will continue to do so until this litigation is finally resolved. ”

News from New Hampshire Forgot to draw up a pre-nup? Court says post-nups are okay too   Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court By Susan Lawrence A unanimous opinion issued by the New Hampshire State Supreme Court found post-nuptial agreements are valid in the state. While a pre-nuptial agreement is signed before a marriage, a post-nuptial agreement may be signed at any time during the marriage, before a couple has separated. Both types of agreements address how certain details will be handled in the event of a divorce or upon the death of one spouse. The case before the supreme court involved Richard and Josephine Wilber, a couple who had been married for nearly 50 years. In March 2007, they signed a post-nuptial agreement. Under the agreement, Richard signed over property he owned in Maryland to Josephine. In return, she allowed him to live on the property until he died or chose not to live there anymore. Richard continued as the exclusive owner of his property in New Hampshire. Per the agreement, neither could seek anything further from the other spouse while they were alive or after they died. On October 18, 2010, Richard passed away and had a valid will. Per their post-nuptial agreement, Richard left nothing to Josephine in his will. At the time of his death, Richard was a resident of Maryland. The executor of his estate filed papers with the Nashua Probate Division to distribute Richard’s property in New Hampshire. (On July 1, 2011, New Hampshire consolidated the probate courts into the circuit courts. This case is now under the jurisdiction of the family division of the Ninth Circuit Court.) In December 2010, Josephine filed a request with the probate court in New Hampshire. She sought to override their post-nuptial agreement, and Richard’s will, to receive the amount she would otherwise be entitled to, as the surviving spouse, under the law. Josephine died March 12, 2011, but the executors continued the legal battle on behalf of the estates. The probate court sided with Josephine’s estate, finding the post-nuptial agreement was not enforceable in the state of New Hampshire. Richard’s estate appealed the decision to the supreme court saying the agreement was valid. Josephine’s estate argued New Hampshire doesn’t recognize post-nuptial agreements as being legally valid. Her estate also argued the trial court properly found the agreement to be unenforceable because it was fundamentally unfair. The supreme court noted New Hampshire law does not expressly permit or prohibit married couples from entering into post-nuptial agreements. Under common law rule, spouses were not able enter into contracts with each other. However, modern law allows spouses to enter into contracts with each other if those contracts are formed properly and are fair. Courts in several other states have also found post-nuptial agreements to be legally valid. The court's opinion explained: “ Post-nuptial agreements give married persons the flexibility to dispose of their property and establish their rights and obligations upon death or marital dissolution...We hold, therefore, that post-nuptial agreements may be enforced in New Hampshire. ” The opinion also addressed the specific post-nuptial agreement between Josephine and Richard. Josephine argued her request filed with the probate court did not violate the terms of the agreement because she did not make any claims against Richard's property. However, the supreme court found her request was a claim that violated the terms of their post-nuptial agreement. The court also addressed the issue of whether the post-nuptial agreement was formed correctly and was fair to both parties. Josephine’s estate had the burden to show the agreement was unfair but offered no evidence. Richard’s son testified Josephine was the one who requested the agreement be drawn up, and she also specified the terms. Josephine’s estate argued Richard invalidated the agreement because he also failed to abide by the terms. After transferring the Maryland property to her, Richard specified terms not included in their original agreement. He made her promise not to divorce him or expect him to make repairs to the Maryland property. However, since she allowed him to transfer to property to her, the court found she was also obligated to comply with the agreement.

See also

• Courtroom Weekly