Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this private termination of parental rights action the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his three minor children, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Father's brief were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting Petitioners permanent physical and legal custody of the children. Petitioners then filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed based on neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress. Father appealed, and his counsel filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, 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 A.R.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order entered by the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Daughter and affirmed the order terminating Father's parental rights to Son, holding that, as to Daughter, the trial court acted in excess of the statutory limits on its subject matter jurisdiction set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1003(b).The trial court entered separate orders terminating Father's parental rights to Daughter and Son. The court concluded grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights to Daughter pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (3), and (7), and that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights to Son pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and (7). The Supreme Court (1) reversed the termination order as to Daughter, holding that the termination order was void; and (2) affirmed the termination order as to Son, holding that the order was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's motion to continue the termination hearing; and (2) the trial court did not err in adjudicating grounds to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re J.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for felony breaking or entering a motor vehicle, misdemeanor larceny, and misdemeanor possession of stolen property, holding that the trial court did not err when it declined to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication.The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction on direct appeal, concluding that Defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence of voluntary intoxication, and therefore, the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was not substantial evidence to require a voluntary intoxication instruction. View "State v. Meader" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence generated from his blood but that the error was not prejudicial.In denying Defendant's suppression motion the court of appeals held that the trial court erred by not excluding Defendant's blood test results but that Defendant failed to carry his burden to show that the denial of his motion to suppress resulted in prejudicial error. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals applied the incorrect standard for determining prejudice resulting from the violation of Defendant's rights under the United States Constitution. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals finding no error in the judgments of conviction in this case, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Defendants' claims had not been properly preserved for appeal.Three defendants were tried together as co-defendants for the involvement in a crime where armed robbers stole nearly half a million dollars from Raleigh's Walnut Creek Amphitheater. Following their convictions two defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying their motions for separate trials. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that because the grounds for severance argued that the beginning of trial were different from the grounds relied upon by Defendants on appeal, Defendants' claims had not been properly preserved for appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in analyzing the case as one involving severance of offenses rather than severance of defendants. View "State v. Melvin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their two minor children and Mother's parental rights to a daughter from a previous relationship, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the parents' parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court found the existence of three grounds to terminate the parental rights of the parents and that termination of both parents' parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) properly adjudicated at least one ground for termination; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the parents' parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re G.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing in part an order of the trial court concluding that two purchasers, the first of whom bought a tract of property at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, and the second of whom bought a property tract from the initial purchaser, were not good faith purchasers for value, holding that the trial court abused its discretion.When the property owners' brought a motion for relief from the foreclosure order, the trial court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over one of the property owners due to insufficient notice and deficient service of process, and therefore, the transfers to both subsequent purchasers should be declared null and void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by determining that the two purchasers were not good faith purchasers for value entitled to the protections available pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-108. View "In re George" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals remanding judgments entered by the superior court for a hearing to determine Defendant's competency at the time of trial, holding that the trial court did not err by failing to hold a second competency hearing immediately prior to the beginning of Defendant's trial on its own motion.Defendant was charged with selling and delivering buprenorphine, maintaining a vehicle for the purpose of selling buprenorphine, possession of buprenorphine with the intent to sell or deliver, and having attained habitual felon status. Defendant was convicted. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court had erred by failing to hold a second competency hearing before the beginning of his trial. The court of appeals agreed and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his challenge to the trial court's failure to inquire into his competence to stand trial on its own motion. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court ordered that Respondent William F. Brooks be suspended without compensation from office as a Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Judicial district Twenty-Three, for thirty days from the entry of this order, holding that Respondent violated Canons 1, 2A, 5D, and 6C of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.The Judicial Standards Commission recommended that Respondent be censured for violations of Canons 1, 2A, 5D, and 6C amounting to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that constituted willful misconduct in office. Respondent accepted responsibility for his actions, acknowledging they were wrong, and the Commission found that Respondent cooperated, admitted error and showed remorse. 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 and then determined that a one-month sanction was appropriate. View "In re Brooks" on Justia Law