Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the trial court properly terminated Father's rights based on an adjudication under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3) that he willfully failed to pay child support in the six months prior to the filing of the termination-of-parental-rights petition.Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on four separate grounds. The trial court also determined that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court erred in adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Father willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the child's cost of care despite his physical and financial ability to do so. View "In re J.A.E.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment finding Defendants liable for defamation and awarding Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages, holding that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it was required to find one of the statutory aggravating factors before awarding punitive damages pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 1D-15(a).Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support a finding of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendants' motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (3) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the issue of falsity; but (4) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it was required to find one of the statutory aggravating factors before awarding punitive damages. View "Desmond v. News & Observer Publishing Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to show that Defendant possessed the felonious intent necessary to support his convictions.Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, felonious breaking or entering, and discharging a weapon into an occupied property. During trial, Defendant had moved to dismiss the charges against him for insufficiency of the evidence, but the trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon and for felonious breaking or entering on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, due to the existence of sufficient evidence regarding felonious intent, the trial court properly denied Defendant's motions to dismiss the charges against him. View "State v. Cox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions and granting Defendant a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by declining to give Defendant's requested jury instruction on self defense and the defense of habitation.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and possession of a firearm by a felon. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred by failing to give Defendant's requested jury instructions on the law of self-defense with the stand-your-ground provision and the law of the defense of habitation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the submission of Defendant's requested instructions to the jury on self-defense and the defense of habitation; and (2) there was a reasonable possibility that had the trial court not committed prejudicial error in its presentation of instructions to the jury a different result would have been reached at the trial. View "State v. Coley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court eliminating reunification from the permanent plan for Mother's daughter and terminating Mother's parental rights in the child, holding that that district court judge did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the judge did not commit prejudicial error by misstating the applicable standard of proof, eliminating reunification as a component of the permanent plan for the child, or reducing the amount of visitation that Mother was entitled to have with the child in the permanency planning order; and (2) the judge did not err by finding that Mother's parental rights in the child were subject to termination based upon her willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the child's removal from the family home. View "In re L.E.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the retroactivity provision of the Racial Justice Act (RJA) Repeal violated the double jeopardy protections of the North Carolina Constitution.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the RJA, Defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief pursuant to the RJA. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that race was a significant factor in the decisions of prosecutors to exercise peremptory challenges to strike African-American jurors and resentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. After three more defendants showed that their death sentences were sought or imposed on the basis of race the General Assembly repealed the RJA. The trial court concluded that the RJA Repeal retroactively voided the defendants' claims and dismissed each of the defendants' motions for appropriate relief. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order, holding that the retroactivity provision of the RJA Repeal violates double jeopardy protections and that, in any event, the State lacked the statutory authority to appeal that judgment. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his children, holding that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and that the post termination proceedings did not cure the errors.On appeal, Father asked the Supreme Court to vacate each of the judgments and orders entered in this case because the trial court failed to comply with the notice requirements under the Act before terminating his parental rights. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case, holding that where the trial court had reason to know that an Indian child might be involved and that where any notices the trial court sent failed to include all of the necessary information required by statute, the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights must be reversed. View "In re E.J.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his three children in this private termination action, holding that the trial court considered the factors in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a), and the trial court's findings supported its conclusion that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights.Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in weighing the factors and concluding that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re K.L.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Business Court in this action brought by Global Textile Alliance, Inc. (GTA) alleging that Defendants engaged in several improper acts during the formation and operation of Dolven Enterprises, Inc., holding that the Business Court did not abuse its discretion either by ordering production of the relevant communications or by conducting a limited review of those communications.When it was discovered that GTA had withheld confidential correspondence between GTA and its outside counsel and Haspeslagh conveying legal advice regarding the matters giving rise to the instant litigation Defendant filed a motion to compel GTA to produce the communications. Defendant argued that GTA waived the attorney-client privilege by including Stefaan Haspeslagh on communications with GTA's counsel. The Business Court granted the motion to compel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Business Court (1) did not abuse its discretion by determining that communications involving Haspeslagh were not privileged under the attorney-client privilege; (2) did not err in determining that communications involving Haspeslagh were not protected under the work-product doctrine; and (3) did not err by not conducting an exhaustive in camera review of all communications involving Haspeslagh. View "Global Textile Alliance, Inc. v. TDI Worldwide, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals upholding Defendant's convictions for two counts of engaging in sexual activity with a student, holding that Defendant sufficiently preserved for appellate review whether the State presented sufficient evidence of each element of the crime for which he was convicted, but, nonetheless, the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion to dismiss.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on insufficient evidence, arguing that the evidence at trial did not establish that he was a "teacher" within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-27.7(b). The court of appeals concluded that Defendant had failed to preserve his arguments for appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Defendant sufficient preserved for appellate review all sufficiency of the evidence issues through his motion to dismiss at trial; and (2) Defendant fell within the "teacher" category under the statute. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law