Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's permanency planning order granting guardianship of Iliana to her maternal grandmother, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that Respondent acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as Iliana's parent.The trial court entered an order adjudicating Iliana to be a dependent juvenile and ordering her to remain int he temporary legal and physical custody of her maternal grandmother. Later, the trial court entered a permanency planning order granting guardianship of Iliana to her grandmother and ceased reunification efforts with Respondent based on his lack of progress on his case plan. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings of fact supporting its conclusion that Respondent acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as Iliana's parent were supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "In re I.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals finding no plain error in the judgment of conviction of Defendant for three counts of indecent liberties with a child, holding that Defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.A divided court of appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the trial proceedings. The dissent, however, argued that several errors were committed during trial and that the cumulative effect of the errors required reversal of the convictions. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the majority decision of the court of appeals, holding (1) even if certain testimony was admitted in error, the error was not prejudicial; (2) the trial court did not err by allowing the State's witnesses to use the term "disclose"; and (3) the trial court did not plainly err by allowing past domestic violence evidence. View "State v. Betts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder by starvation and negligent child abuse inflicting serious bodily injury and Defendant's sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, holding that there was no prejudicial error.Before the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the first-degree murder charge on the grounds that the record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support a finding that the child victim's death was proximately caused by starvation. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the trial court had ample justification for concluding that the victim died as a proximate result of starvation. View "State v. Cheeks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the majority decision of the court of appeals finding no error in Defendant's trial and conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver methamphetamine.On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to support a charge of possession of methamphetamine but was insufficient to send to the jury the greater charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver methamphetamine. The court of appeals majority disagreed and affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence of Defendant's intent to sell or deliver methamphetamine. View "State v. Blagg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part and order entered by the superior court entering final judgment in favor of Defendants in this litigation to enjoin enforcement measures stemming from the belief that a Rewards Program encompassed within the operation of Crazie Overstock LLC's enterprise was unlawful, holding that the Rewards Program constituted an unlawful sweepstakes in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-306.4.Crazie Overstock brought this action to enjoin enforcement measures taken by the State and certain members of the State's Alcohol and Law Enforcement Division. The enforcement measures were taken on the grounds that the Rewards Program was unlawful. The superior court entered final judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that the Crazie Overstock Rewards Program may violate N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-306.4 and other North Carolina gambling provisions. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment for Defendants with respect to the issue of whether the Rewards Program violated section 14-306.4 but reversed and remanded as to the issue of whether the program violated section 14-306.1A. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the Rewards Program constituted an unlawful sweepstakes in violation of section 14-306.4, and remand was unnecessary. View "Crazie Overstock Promotions, LLC v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court ordered that Respondent, C. Randy Pool, a Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Judicial District 29A, be censured for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(4), and 3A(5) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-376(b) for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.The Judicial Standards Commission filed a Recommendation of Judicial Discipline recommending that Respondent be censured for sexual misconduct. The Supreme Court concluded that the Commission's findings of fact were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the Commission's conclusions of law were supported by those facts. The Court then ordered that Respondent be censured. View "In re Pool" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage claim, holding that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and N.C. Const. art. I, 12 explicitly protect petitioning activity, including Defendants' speech in this case.Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging that, by virtue of intentional and malicious misrepresentations made to a town, Defendants tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's prospective economic advantage by inducing a third party not to perform the purchase of certain property. Plaintiff's suit was based on Defendants' presentation at certain rezoning hearings. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, asserting that they were immune from liability because their statements to the town were constitutionally protected petitioning activity. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court court reversed, holding that Defendants' petitioning was protected by the First Amendment and Article I, Section 12. View "Cheryl Lloyd Humphrey Land Investment Co., LLC v. Resco Products, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that governmental immunity did not bar Plaintiff's claim under the North Carolina Constitution for a school board's deliberate indifference to continual student harassment.Plaintiffs alleged that the school board's indifference denied students their constitutionally-guaranteed right to the opportunity to receive a sound basis education under N.C. Const. art. I, 15. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in part that the claim under the North Carolina Constitution was barred by the defense of sovereign or governmental immunity. The trial court denied the motion in part and allowed the constitutional claim to proceed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that abuse or an abusive classroom environment does not violate a constitutional right to education. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where a government entity with control over the school is deliberately indifferent to ongoing harassment that prevents a student from accessing his constitutionally guaranteed right to a sound basic education, the student has a colorable claim under the state Constitution. View "Deminski v. State Board of Education" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals ordering a new trial in this case on the grounds that the prosecutor's commentary on Defendant's decision to plead not guilty was so unfair it violated Defendant's due process rights, holding that the prosecutor's comments did not so prejudice Defendant so as to warrant a new trial.Defendant was found guilty of several offenses after a jury trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to intervene ex mero motu when the prosecutor made improper remarks about Defendant's decision to plead not guilty during closing arguments. The court of appeals agreed and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced as a result of the prosecutor's improper closing arguments. View "State v. Goins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court adjudicating Mother's child a neglected and dependent juvenile and the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights in her child based on neglect and dependency, holding that the trial court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence supported the findings of fact, and the findings supported the trial court's conclusion that the child was a dependent juvenile; (2) the trial court did not err in ceasing reunification efforts with Mother and failing to make reunification part of the child's permanency plan; and (3) the trial court did not err by adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re A.W." on Justia Law