Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, holding that the prosecutor's exclusion of an African-American potential juror constituted a substantive violation of Defendant's constitutional right to equal protection under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).After the court of appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, Defendant filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court, asserting that the case presented a substantial constitutional question under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and N.C. Const. art. I, 19. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of Defendant's Batson challenge in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. 488 (2016). On remand, the Supreme Court again ordered that Defendant's Batson objections be overruled. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State committed a substantive violation of Defendant's constitutional right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. View "State v. Clegg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the ruling of the court of appeals finding no prejudicial error in the criminal proceedings resulting in Defendant's conviction for second-degree forcible rape and first-degree kidnapping, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below. On appeal, Defendant alleged several trial court errors, including the two errors at issue on appeal. The court of appeals affirmed, thus rejecting each of Defendant's arguments. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the court of appeals, holding that, assuming without deciding that the trial court's admission of certain testimony violated Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause and that other testimony violated N.C. R. Evid. 404(b), the assumed errors were not prejudicial. View "State v. Pabon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that chance predominated over skill in Plaintiffs' new video game and, therefore, this game was a game of chance that violated N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-306.4, which prohibits the operation of sweepstakes conducted through video games of chance.Plaintiffs sued Governor Roy Cooper and certain state law enforcement officials seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendants' operation of a sweepstakes through video game kiosks does not violate N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-306.4, which criminalizes certain video sweepstakes. The trial court held that the sweepstakes game was lawful, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' new game was a video game of chance prohibited by section 14-306.4. View "Gift Surplus, LLC v. State ex rel. Cooper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondent's parental rights, holding that the purported issues addressed by counsel in support of the appeal were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on willful abandonment and willful failure without justification to pay for the child's care. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(4) and (7). The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed after reviewing the issues identified by Father's counsel in a no merit brief, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.I.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her juvenile child, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination was in the child's best interests.After a hearing, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights on the grounds of abuse, neglect, and dependency. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2). The court further found that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother's challenges to the court's findings of fact were unavailing; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in making its best interests determination. View "In re N.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule but vacated the trial court's judgment as to Defendant's conviction of robbery with a dangerous weapon, holding that the trial court committed error in denying Defendant's motion to continue.Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule with assault with a firearm on a government official as the underlying felony. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed constitutional error when it denied his motion to continue based on the State's disclosure on the evening of trial that it planned to use certain phone calls out of more than 800 recorded calls made by Defendant from jail. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court committed constitutional error by denying hte motion to continue, but the error was harmless as to Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule where the underlying felony was a general intent crime; and (2) a new trial is ordered as to Defendant's robbery with a dangerous weapon conviction. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the business court determining the fair value of shares held by shareholders in Reynolds American Inc. (RAI), holding that the dissenters' challenges to the business court's judgment were without merit.RAI sought judicial appraisal after it was acquired by British American Tobacco. The business court determined that the $59.64 per share plus interest RAI paid the dissenters after they notified RAI of their intent to seek judicial appraisal equaled or exceeded the fair value of RAI shares as of the date of the merger and that no further payments to the dissenters was required. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the business court correctly concluded that the dissenters were paid fair value for their shares. View "Reynolds Am. Inc. v. Third Motion Equities Master Fund Ltd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order entered by the district court terminating Father's parental rights in his five minor children, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and willful failure to pay a reasonable portion for the cost of caring for the juveniles. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were sufficient to support its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights on the basis of neglect. View "In re S.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his child, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that termination of the parents' parental rights was in the child's best interests. Father was the only party to this appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Father's challenges to the trial court's findings of fact were unavailing; and (2) the trial court did not err in adjudicating neglect as a ground for termination of Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). View "In re R.G.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals that vacated Defendant's conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of a judgment of acquittal, holding that remand was required for a new trial.Defendant was convicted of "knowingly and willfully" threatening to kill a court officer. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant's conviction violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. At issue on appeal was whether the First Amendment protected Defendant from being convicted for publishing messages contained in his Facebook posts. The Supreme Court held that Defendant's messages were shielded by the First Amendment and that, because there remained questions for a properly instructed jury, the matter must be remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law