Conner v. NORTH CAROLINA COUNCIL OF STATE
365 N.C. 242
| N.C. | 2011Background
- Inmates sentenced to death challenge the Council of State's approval of North Carolina's lethal injection protocol.
- The central issue is whether the Council's approval is subject to the North Carolina APA when the DOC exemption applies.
- DOC submitted the lethal injection protocol to the Council; the Council approved it in February 2007 amidst related litigation and stays.
- Petitioners sought contested-case review and declaratory relief under § 15-188 and the APA, arguing procedural and rights-based violations.
- Superior Court dismissed APA-based review and later declaratory claims; the matter proceeded to appeal.
- The Supreme Court held the APA does not govern the Council's approval process, and declaratory rights under § 15-188 are limited as described.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does APA apply to the Council's approval of a DOC protocol? | Conner argues APA governs Council review of DOC protocol. | Council contends DOC exemption removes protocol review from APA; Council review is non-substantive. | APA does not apply to Council's approval. |
| Are petitioners entitled to declaratory relief under § 15-188? | Petitioners seek declaration that approval violated § 15-188 and due process. | Council asserts rights are limited to the death-by-lethal-injection mandate and protocol approval by the Governor and Council. | Rights are limited; no due-process right to participate in approval. |
| Did the superior court err by dismissing the declaratory judgment claim? | There is a genuine controversy under § 15-188 requiring declaratory relief. | No viable declaratory claim beyond the stated rights under § 15-188. | Superior court erred in dismissing the declaratory claim; affirmed as modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. N.C. Dep't of Natural & Econ. Res., 295 N.C. 683 (1978) (non-delegation but need adequate guiding standards)
- Martin v. Thornburg, 320 N.C. 533 (1987) (Council review limited to approval; DOC authority primary)
- Jernigan v. State, 279 N.C. 556 (1971) (declaratory relief for important statutory questions)
- Woodard v. Carteret Cnty., 270 N.C. 55 (1967) (declaratory relief; controversy requirement)
- North Carolina Dep't of Corr. v. North Carolina Med. Bd., 363 N.C. 189 (2009) (statutory rights and agency powers in conflict)