Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that Father did not meet his burden of showing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).The Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition alleging that the child was a neglected and dependent juvenile, that the mother lived in Ohio, and that the child lived with Father in Charlotte, North Carolina. Thereafter, Father's attorney informed the court that the child had not lived in North Carolina for six months before the petition was filed and that there appeared to be a valid custody order from Delaware that granted sole custody to Father. The trial court concluded that it had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)92). Father appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of the UCCJEA when it learned of the Delaware custody order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that North Carolina was the child's home state under the UCCJEA and the trial court had jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. 50A-203 to modify the Delaware custody order and preside over the case. View "In re L.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds.Randolph County Department of Social Services filed motions to terminate Respondents' parental rights to their two children on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal from their home. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Respondents' parental rights based on both grounds alleged in the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. View "In re C.R.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for solicitation by computer or electronic device of a person believed to be fifteen years of age or younger for the purpose of committing an unlawful sex act and appearing at the location where he was supposed to meet the person he believed was a child, holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment. On appeal, the court of appeals held that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on entrapment was not error because the evidence failed to support the instruction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant presented evidence which a reasonable juror could find credible to demonstrate that he did not have a willingness or predisposition to engage in sexual activity with a minor; (2) Defendant's arguments at trial were consistent with the defense of entrapment and should not bar the availability of the defense; and (3) the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on entrapment was prejudicial, and Defendant was entitled to a new trial. View "State v. Keller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that the court's findings of fact were sufficient to comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) and to support the trial court's discretionary determination that the children's best interests would be served by the termination of Mother's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated grounds for terminating Mother's parental rights based on her neglect of the children and her willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to their removal from her care. The court then concluded that it was in the best interests of both children that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in making its dispositional determination that terminating Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re C.V.D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant in this negligence action, holding that because the alleged defect was open and obvious and thus should have been evident to Plaintiff and because Plaintiff did not take reasonable care, summary judgment was properly granted.Plaintiff visited Defendant's church property for a funeral and helped carry the casket. Plaintiff tripped near the top of the stairs and was injured. The top step was visibly higher than the other steps and made of noticeably different materials. The trial court found that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the condition of the top step was open and obvious, whether the top step caused Plaintiff's fall, and whether Plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the top step was an open and obvious condition such that a reasonably prudent person would have recognized it and taken appropriate care to avoid injury while using it; and (2) Plaintiff did not take the care that an ordinary person would have taken while carrying the casket up the set of stairs and so was contributorily negligent. View "Draughon v. Evening Star Holiness Church of Dunn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' rights to their minor child, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it would be in the child's best interests to terminate Respondents' parental rights.The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Respondents' parental rights on the grounds that Respondents neglected their child, willfully left the child in foster care or placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to his removal, and willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the child. The trial court entered an order finding all three grounds for termination and concluding that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that termination of Respondents' parental rights was in the child's best interests was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason. View "In re A.J.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals that vacated Defendants' convictions for certain charges, holding that when the prosecutor moved to amend the arrest warrant to correctly state the name of the property owner and did so by filing a statement of charges form after arraignment, the superior court properly considered and allowed the change.At issue was whether the prosecutor lost the right to amend the criminal warrant in this case when the amendment was filed on a statement of charges form after Defendant's arraignment. The court of appeals held that because Defendant was tried under a statement of charges that was filed after arraignment and because the sufficiency of the original arrest warrant had not been contested, the statement of charges was untimely and the superior court had no jurisdiction to try the case under that charging document. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) regardless of the label, such a change is still an amendment and no statutory provision limits the filing of a statement of charges in this way; and (2) therefore, the trial court did not err in proceeding under the amended pleading. View "State v. Capps" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant, holding that the warrant supported by probable cause.Defendant pled guilty to the offense of trafficking in cocaine while preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the facts contained in the affidavit were insufficient to establish probable cause to search his residence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the affidavit contained facts that were sufficient to provide a nexus between the residence and suspected criminal activity, and therefore, the warrant was supported by probable cause. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court awarding Plaintiffs compensation for a taking of various portions of their property with pre-judgment interest, holding that the portion of the trial court's order concerning the proper evaluation of the pre-judgment interest rate was contrary to this Court's precedents.In 1987, the General Assembly adopted the Roadway Corridor Official Map Act. In 1992 and 2006, portions of Plaintiffs' property were designated as within a roadway corridor pursuant to that statute. Plaintiffs filed an inverse condemnation complaint against the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) seeking compensation for the taking. Final judgment was issued awarding Plaintiffs $137,247 for the 1992 taking and $6,139 for the 2006 taking, both with pre-judgment interest at eight percent compounded annually. NCDOT appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court did not err in proceeding to trial on the inverse condemnation complaint; (2) any error in the court's characterization of the taking was harmless; (3) the court's treatment of the reduced property taxes was proper; but (4) the trial court erred concerning the proper evaluation of the pre-judgment interest rate. View "Chappell v. N.C. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgment evicting Tenant and granting possession of the apartment in which she lived to Landlord based on nonpayment of rent for January 2017 and the first part of February 2017, holding that eviction was improper.The apartment complex in this case was a project-based Section 8 property. In late 2016, Landlord sought to evict Tenant by terminating her lease for alleged breaches relating primarily to her conduct. On January 9, 2017, Tenant was served with a notice to pay rent or quit, claiming Tenant was in default under the rental agreement. The district court determined that Landlord had waived its claims as to Tenant's alleged lease breaches. The court then entered a judgment evicting Tenant and granting possession of the apartment to Landlord. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Landlord did not waive his right to terminate the lease based on Tenant's alleged breaches; (2) terminating a lease or a federal subsidy for a tenant in a federally-subsidized housing arrangement requires compliance with federal law as incorporated in the terms of the lease; and (3) there were insufficient findings to support the conclusion that Landlord was entitled to possession on the basis of nonpayment of rent. View "Winston Affordable Housing, LLC v. Roberts" on Justia Law