Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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