Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by competent evidence and that Defendant's search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.Following the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress Defendant pleaded guilty to various drug offenses. The court of appeals vacated the convictions, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) competent evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact; (2) Defendant was lawfully detained pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) and State v. Williams, 490 S.E.2d 583 (N.C. 1997); and (3) the frisk of Defendant was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. View "State v. Tripp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the termination order was properly entered pursuant to Rules 52 and 53 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.The trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights in her child based on an adjudication of grounds under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(6) and (9) and a determination that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the order was supported by the presumption of regularity, which Mother failed to rebut, as well as an unchallenged finding of fact. View "In re E.D.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction this breach of contract matter, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.Plaintiff, which was based in Durham, North Carolina, brought this action against Defendant, a California company, after Defendant allegedly refused to pay certain fees as required by the parties' agreement and terminated the agreement without cause. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Defendant had the requisite minimum contacts with the forum. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the maintenance of this suit did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. View "Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Smart & Final Stores LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in this negligence action, holding that the court of appeals erred.Plaintiffs, an elderly infirm couple, sued Defendant for negligence and punitive damages, alleging that they hired Defendant as their in-home health provider and that Defendant negligently assigned a certain personal care aide to them, and that aide was a proximate cause of suspected thefts from their home and the resulting injuries they sustained. The jury found that Plaintiffs were entitled to $750,000 in damages from Defendant for their personal injuries. The trial court denied Defendant's ensuing motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The court of appeals reversed and remanded for the entry of JNOV in Defendant's favor. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence for each element of the claim; and (2) the court of appeals erred by holding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's requested instructions. View "Keith v. Health-Pro Home Care Services Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to three of her minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.The Department of Social Services moved to terminate Mother's parental rights to the three juveniles on the grounds of neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, willful failure to pay for the cost of care for the juveniles, and abandonment. The trial court concluded that grounds existed for termination pursuant to each of the grounds alleged and that it was in the juveniles' best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's amended termination order was entered without jurisdiction, but the findings of fact in the trial court's original order supported the adjudication on the ground of neglect; and (2) Mother failed to show prejudice from any alleged error by her trial counsel. View "In re B.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that Defendant's sentence violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, holding that it violates both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and N.C. Const. art. I, 27 to sentence a juvenile homicide officer who has been determined to be neither incorrigible nor irredeemable to life without parole.Defendant was seventeen years old when he was indicted for participating in murders. Defendant pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and ordered to serve two consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of parole. After the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the trial court expressly found that Defendant was "neither incorrigible nor irredeemable" but nevertheless ordered him to serve two consecutive sentences of life with the possibility of parole. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Defendant's sentence was a de facto sentence of life without parole under article I, section 27; and (2) because Defendant was found to be neither incorrigible nor irredeemable, his sentence was unconstitutional. View "State v. Kelliher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court partially denying Officer Matt Blackman's motion for summary judgment with respect to Bruce Bartley's claims against him in his individual capacity based on the defense of public official immunity, holding that Officer Blackman was not entitled to summary judgment based upon the defense of public official immunity.Bartley filed a civil suit against Officer Blackman, in both his official and individual capacities, and against the City of High Point for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment/arrest, and assault and battery. The trial court dismissed the claims against the City and Officer Blackman in his official capacity on the ground that sovereign immunity barred those claims but denied summary judgment as to the claims against Officer Blackman in his individual capacity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Officer Blackman acted with malice in carrying out his official duties. View "Bartley v. City of High Point" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the trial court erred in adjudicating the existence of grounds to support a termination of Father's parental rights.At the conclusion of a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to support the termination of Father's parental rights and that it was in the child's best interest to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in adjudicating the existence of grounds for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2) or (7) because the termination of parental rights motion failed to provide sufficient notice to Father that his parental rights were potentially subject to termination under those grounds. View "In re D.R.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that juvenile offenders who have received sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility for parole must have the opportunity to seek an early release afforded by the prospect of parole after serving no more than forty years' incarceration.Defendant was fifteen years old when he received sentences of 240 to 348 months' imprisonment for a rape conviction and life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for a murder conviction, ordered by the trial court to run consecutively. The Supreme Court held that, while juvenile offenders who have received sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole are not guaranteed parole at any point during their terms of incarceration, to compel Defendant to serve a term of incarceration in excess of forty years upon the trial court's determination that Defendant was neither incorrigible nor irredeemable would constitutionally constitute a de facto life sentence. View "State v. Conner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to the juvenile who was the focus of this matter, holding that Stepmother had standing to initiate the termination action and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.Stepmother filed a private petition to terminate Mother's parental rights to her minor child, alleging as grounds for termination willful abandonment of the child within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). After a trial, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights to the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Stepmother satisfied the relevant statutory requirements to file a private petition for termination of parental rights; (2) clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of abandonment existed for the termination of Mother's parental rights; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re A.A." on Justia Law