Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, Carrie, and the trial court's earlier permanency-planning order that eliminated reunification from Carrie's permanent plan, holding that there was no reversible error.On appeal, Mother did not challenge the trial court's conclusions that grounds existed to terminate her parental rights or that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by denying Mother's motion to continue the termination hearing; (2) did not reversibly err in failing to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act because there was no reason for the court to know that Carrier was an Indian child under 25 C.F.R. 23.107(c); and (3) did not abuse its discretion by eliminating Mother's visitation with Carrie in a permanency-planning order. View "In re C.C.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing in part and vacating in part Defendant's convictions for insufficient evidence, holding that the court of appeals erred.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of violating a civil domestic violence protective order while in possession of a deadly weapon, felonious breaking or entering, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault on a female. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's convictions for violation of a protective order and felonious breaking or entering for insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred. View "State v. Tucker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, felonious speeding to elude arrest, and robbery with a dangerous weapon, holding that Defendant was disqualified from claiming the justification of self-defense.At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Defendant could not claim self-defense to justify his use of deadly force because he was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court held (1) N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-51.4, the stand your ground law, requires the State to prove an immediate causal nexus between a defendant's attempt to commit, commission of, or escape after the commission of the felony and the circumstances giving rise to the defendant's perceived need to use force; (2) because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on this causal nexus requirement, the jury instructions were erroneous, but the error was not prejudicial; and (3) under section 14-51.4(1), Defendant was disqualified from claiming the justification of self-defense. View "State v. McLymore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court concluding that Defendant had committed the revocable probation violation of absconding, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Defendant's probation upon concluding that Defendant had absconded his probation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the probation violation reports sufficiently alleged that Defendant absconded supervision; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to revoke Defendant's probation and to activate his suspended sentences upon Defendant admitting that he committed the revocable violation of absconding probation. View "State v. Crompton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Alice, a minor child, holding that the issues identified by Father's counsel as arguably supporting an appeal were meritless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in deciding to discontinue reunification efforts; (2) the evidence and findings of fact supported the trial court's determination that grounds existed to substantiate the termination of Father's parental rights to Alice; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it would be in Alice's best interests for Father's parental rights to be terminated. View "In re A.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court that terminated the parental rights of Father to Ronnie, a minor child, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that two grounds for termination existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) at least one of the grounds found by the trial court for the termination of Father's parental rights was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the child's best interests would be served by the termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re J.R.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals holding that the decision of the North Carolina Industrial Commission should be reversed and this case remanded to the Commission for recalculation of Plaintiff's average weekly wage, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Plaintiff, an injured employee, received temporary disability benefits. Plaintiff later requested that his claim be assigned for a hearing, claiming that Defendant, his employer, had unilaterally lowered the amount of temporary total disability benefits that he had been receiving with respect to his back injury and that the parties could not agree with respect to the amount of benefits to which Plaintiff was entitled. The Commission determined that the fifth method for calculating Plaintiff's average weekly wage was appropriate for use in this case. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings and conclusions that the Commission made in support of its average weekly wages determination appeared to rest upon a misapplication of the applicable legal standard. View "Nay v. Cornerstone Staffing Solutions" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights was supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds.Respondent, the father of the child in this case, had not seen his daughter since she was a year and a half old and never pursued legal action to legitimate the child. Petitioner filed a petition alleging a ground existed to terminate Respondent's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(5), failure to legitimate. The trial court concluded that a ground existed to terminate Respondent's parental rights and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error. View "In re K.M.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court and remanded this case for further remand to the superior court with instructions to reinstate its earlier order granting summary judgment in favor of the Attorney General, holding that the New Hanover County Board of Education's amended complaint did not suffice to support a claim pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 147-76.1.This case arose from the Board of Education's challenge to the Attorney General administration of an environmental enhancement grant program funded by payments made by Smithfield Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries pursuant to an agreement between the companies and the Attorney General. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Attorney General and dismissed the Board of Education's allegations that the payments received from the Smithfield companies under the agreement constituted civil penalties that should have been made available to public schools pursuant to N.C. Const. Art. IX, 7. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's judgment, holding that the court of appeals erred by concluding that the Board of Education’s complaint sufficed to support a claim for relief pursuant to section 147-76.1. View "New Hanover County Board of Education v. Stein" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals upholding Defendant's conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child, holding that the case must be remanded for a new trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in allowing the State's expert to testify that the minor child in this case was sexually abused in the absence of physical evidence confirming her opinion, that the State's expert identifying Defendant as the perpetrator of the charged offense constituted plain error, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) permitting testimony that the minor child was sexually assaulted in the absence of definitive physical evidence constituted plain error; (2) the trial court committed plain error in permitting testimony as to the medical recommendations identifying Defendant as the perpetrator; and (3) the court of appeals did not err in dismissing Defendant's IAC claim without prejudice. View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law