Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals determining that the trial court committed prejudicial error in denying Defendant's request for a jury instruction on justification as a defense to the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the trial court did not err.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying Defendant's requested instruction on justification. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this case did not support all four elements of the justification defense as required by State v. Mercer, 838 S.E.2d 359 (N.C. 2020); and (2) therefore, the court of appeals erred in reversing Defendant's conviction and remanding for a new trial. View "State v. Swindell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the trial court's order authorizing sale and remanded the case, holding that the condominium association Executive Office Park of Durham Association, Inc. (Executive Office) had the power of sale for foreclosure pursuant N.C. Gen. Stat. 47C-3-116 for nonpayment of an assessment that occurred after October 1, 1986.The condominium in this case was formed prior to the enactment of the North Carolina Condominium Act in 1985. In 2018, Executive Office filed a claim of lien against three units owned by Martin Rock, alleging that assessments and other charges from 2018 had remained unpaid for more than thirty days. Thereafter, the substitute trustee sainitiated a power of sale foreclosure. The superior court entered an order authorizing sale. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Executive Office lacked the power of sale for foreclosure. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred by failing to apply N.C. Gen. Stat. 47C-1-102(a) when addressing Rock's argument that Executive Office lacked the power of sale for foreclosure; and (2) because the condominium was created in North Carolina before October 1, 1986 and the assessments and non-payment occurred after that date, Executive Office possessed the power of sale permitted by section 47C-3-116(f). View "In re Foreclosure of a Lien by Executive Office Park of Durham Ass'n against Rock" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing in part and vacating in part the trial court's adjudication of abuse, neglect, and dependency and eliminating reunification efforts with Mother.The trial court adjudicated the child an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile and, finding that reunification with Mother would be unsuccessful, ordered that reunification efforts with Mother cease. Mother's visitation rights with the child were terminated. The court of appeals vacated the disposition and permanency planning order, holding that the trial court denied Mother a fair hearing and erred in adjudicating the child an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in adjudicating the child abused, neglected, and dependent; (2) the trial court did not err in eliminating reunification efforts with Mother; and (3) Mother's counsel provided effective assistance. View "In re L.N.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction of felony obstructing of justice, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict finding Defendant guilty of felony obstruction of justice.After a nearly three-week-long jury trial, Defendant was convicted of, among other offenses, obtaining property by false pretenses and felony obstruction of justice. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that the State did provide substantial evidence of obstruction to support the felony obstruction of justice conviction. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the felony obstruction of justice conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of felony obstruction of justice. View "State v. Bradsher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals remanding this case to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law on Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, holding that the court of appeals erred.Plaintiffs brought this complaint against Bank alleging fraud and other related claims. The trial court granted Bank's motion to dismiss pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case because the trial court did not make findings of fact and the court could not "conduct a meaningful review of the trial court's conclusions of law." The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the court of appeals erred by not conducting a de novo review of the sufficiency of the allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint. View "Taylor v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause allows North Carolina courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over companies that received millions of dollars in assets by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (Old DuPont) when the company, facing liability for releasing harmful chemicals into the North Carolina environment over a period of decades, underwent a significant corporate reorganization.North Carolina brought an action against Old DuPont and its corporate successors, asserting negligence, trespass, public nuisance, fraud, and fraudulent transfer related to Old DuPont's use of harmful chemicals at its Fayetteville Works plant and its subsequent reorganization to avoid liability. At issue was whether the Due Process Clause permits jurisdiction to be exercised over a corporate successor when the predecessor is subject to jurisdiction in the forum and state law subjects the successor to liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the business court's denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that personal jurisdiction could be established through the imputation analysis for all of the State's claims arising out of or related to Old DuPont's activities in North Carolina. View "State ex rel. Stein v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court granting Defendants' motion to dismiss this action brought against Troy University, an accredited, four-year state university with several campuses in Alabama and an office in Fayetteville, North Carolina, alleging various tort claims arising out of his employment and termination, holding that Troy University explicitly waived its sovereign immunity.Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against Troy University and two individual defendants asserting, among other things, claims for wrongful discharge from employment in violation of public policy and negligent retention or supervision of an employee. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on sovereign immunity, citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019), which established that states are required to recognize sovereign immunity of other states as a matter of constitutional law. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) Troy University explicitly waived its sovereign immunity and consented to be sued in North Carolina; and (2) therefore, the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not bar Plaintiff's suit against Defendants. View "Farmer v. Troy University" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the judgments entered upon Defendant's convictions for multiple serious felonies, including first-degree murder, holding that the record did not support the trial court's determination that Defendant's actions were sufficiently obstructive to constitute a forfeiture of his right to counsel.Defendant was indicted on charges of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and other crimes. The trial court decided before trial that Defendant's actions forfeited his opportunity to have assigned counsel, and Defendant proceeded pro se. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all offenses, and Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. The court of appeals awarded Defendant a new trial, determining that the trial court deprived Defendant of his constitutional right to counsel by concluding that he had forfeited that right. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial because he did not engage in the type of egregious misconduct that would permit the trial court to deprive him of his constitutional right to counsel. View "State v. Harvin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the court of appeal affirming the denial of Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari to the extent that this Court affirms the outcome reached by the lower appellate court without prejudice to Defendant to pursue any other legal remedy that has not been determined by the Court's opinion, holding that the superior court properly acted within its discretion in denying Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari.The court of appeals determined that only the superior court's order denying Defendant's certiorari petition, and not the order denying Defendant's motion to reinstate charges, was properly before the appellate court. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) a criminal defendant does not possess the right to compel the district attorney, who has the authority to place the defendant’s unresolved criminal charges in a dismissed-with-leave status, to reinstate the dismissed charges and to place the charges on a trial court’s criminal case calendar for resolution; and (2) a trial court lacks the authority to order that criminal charges that have been dismissed with leave by the district attorney be reinstated and placed on a trial court’s criminal case calendar against the will of the district attorney. View "State v. Diaz-Tomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that Defendant waived the right to appellate review of the trial court's denial of Defendant's request for a self-defense instruction, holding that Defendant properly preserved his challenge and that the trial court did not err by refusing to deliver the requested self-defense instruction.After the conclusion of the jury instruction conference and prior to the delivery of the trial court's instructions to the jury defense counsel requested that an instruction on self-defense to be given to the jurors. The trial court denied the request. The jury subsequently returned verdicts convicting Defendant of assault by strangulation and other offenses. Defendant appealed, challenging the trial court's rejection of his self-defense instruction. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant waived appellate review on the issue. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Defendant's challenge to the trial court's refusal to issue a self-defense instruction was properly preserved for appellate review; and (2) the trial court did not err in declining to instruct the jury on self-defense. View "State v. Hooper" on Justia Law