Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court terminating Father's parental rights to his son, holding that the trial court's denial of Father's motion to continue the adjudicatory hearing undermined the fairness of that hearing and that the trial court prejudicially erred.On the day of the adjudicatory termination hearing, Father was unable to appear due to a lockdown at his prison due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court denied Father's motion to continue the hearing and later terminated his parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding that by denying Father's motion to continue the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court violated Father's rights to due process and undermined the fundamental fairness of that hearing. View "In re C.A.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the order of the trial court and vacating Defendant's convictions on the grounds that the delay in his case was unjustified and violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, holding that remand was required.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony hit and run resulting in serious injury or death, two counts of second-degree murder, and attaining violent habitual felon status. The court of appeals reversed and vacated Defendant's convictions, holding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss based on speedy trial grounds. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of Defendant's prior attorney where there was no waiver of the attorney-client privilege; and (2) the case is remanded for a rehearing on Defendant's speedy trial claim. View "State v. Farook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this termination of parental rights matter for further proceedings, holding that the findings of fact supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence in the record were insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Father's parental rights in his daughter Annie were subject to termination.Petitioners sought to terminate Father's parental rights based on the fact that he failed some of the drug screens he admitted to between 2018 and 2020 and failed to submit to others. The trial court, however, found Father to have completed a required substance abuse assessment, completed twenty hours of substance abuse treatment, attended visits with his daughter, and completed a parenting program, among other things. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights in his daughter. At issue on appeal was whether the findings of fact that were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence in the record were sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Father’s parental rights for neglect and failure to make reasonable progress. The Supreme Court remanded the matter, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to support its termination decision. View "In re A.N.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the superior court dismissing Plaintiff's lawsuit against Defendants asserting claims under North Carolina's Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), holding that remand was required for further proceedings.Defendants were co-principals in a joint real estate development venture with a party that intended to defraud creditors by way of the party's insider conveyance to Defendants of certain real property. In dismissing Plaintiff's UVTA lawsuit, the trial court concluded that Defendants were good faith purchasers for value and therefore possessed a legitimate defense against Plaintiffs' claims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Defendants were imputed with the knowledge of their co-principal's fraudulent intent by virtue of the principal-agent relationship existing between the parties pursuant to common law. View "Cherry Community Organization v. Sellars" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing in part a permanency planning order awarding legal guardianship of Mother's two minor children to Grandmother, holding that the court of appeals did not err.After a hearing, the trial court awarded guardianship of the two children to Grandmother, concluding that placement of the children with Mother would be contrary to their health, safety, welfare and best interest. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that the best interest of the child supported an award of guardianship to Grandmother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's factual findings sufficed to support its conclusion that Mother had acted inconsistently with her constitutionally-protected right to parent her children; and (2) the trial court did not err in applying the best interest of the child standard in awarding guardianship of the children to Grandmother. View "In re B.R.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and remanding the case to the trial court to give the parties an opportunity to gather and present evidence on a motion for summary judgment, holding that the trial court was not required to convert the motion to dismiss under N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to a motion for summary judgment.Plaintiff brought this action after being diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer, arguing that Defendant swere negligent in failing to diagnose Plaintiff with cancer. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations and four-year statute of repose in N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-15(c). The trial court dismissed the claims with prejudice. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court should have converted the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred by ruling that the trial court considered matters outside the pleading, thus converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment. View "Blue v. Bhiro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission denying Plaintiff relief on her claim for disability compensation from Defendants, holding that there was no error.On appeal, the court of appeals held that Plaintiff's claim was not time-barred under N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-24 and thus reversed the Commission's dismissal of Plaintiff's claim based on a 2014 injury. The court remanded the case to the Commission for a determination as to whether Plaintiff suffered a compensable injury under the Workers' Compensation Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's claim was not barred by section 97-24. View "Cunningham v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the court of appeals, which held that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept Defendant's guilty plea, holding that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept Defendant's guilty plea but that the guilty plea must be accepted or rejected as a whole, not in part.The trial court sentenced Defendant to separate and consecutive sentences based on several assault charges arising from one assaultive episode. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the State did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the trial court to enter judgments on multiple assault charges. The court then remanded the case with instructions to arrest two lesser judgments and to repentance Defendant on the remaining charges. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the facts presented at the plea hearing did not establish that a distinct interruption occurred between assaults, and therefore, the court of appeals properly found that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept Defendant's guilty plea; and (2) there was no basis for rejecting Defendant's guilty plea in part. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress, see N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). The court further found that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court's unchallenged findings did not fully support its adjudication of neglect as grounds for termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by concluding that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect and terminating Father's parental rights on this ground. View "In re K.Q." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction for driving while impaired, holding that even if the admission of certain testimony was erroneous under N.C. R. Evid. 701, Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that such assumed error was prejudicial.At issue was the testimony of Officer Henry Carssow, who responded at the scene of a moped accident in which Defendant was involved. Officer Carssow applied for a search warrant to obtain a sample of Defendant's blood to check his blood alcohol concentration. A magistrate executed and signed the application. After Defendant's blood was drawn he was charged and ultimately convicted of unlawfully and willfully operating a motor vehicle while subject to an impairing substance. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's conviction, ruling that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting Officer Carssow's lay witness opinion that Defendant was driving the moped at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Officer Carssow's testimony was properly preserved for appeal; and (2) even if the admission of the testimony was erroneous, Defendant failed to show that such assumed error was prejudicial. View "State v. Delau" on Justia Law