Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of trafficking in cocaine by possession, holding that Defendant did not waive his sufficiency of the evidence argument and that the court of appeals' conclusion that the State failed to present substantial evidence that Defendant possessed 400 grams or more of cocaine is left undisturbed.At issue on appeal was whether Defendant waived his sufficiency of the evidence argument by failing to raise it in the trial court and whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss based on insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant did not waive his sufficiency of the evidence argument; and (2) because the members of the Court were equally divided as to whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction the holding of the court of appeals stands affirmed without presidential value. View "State v. Royster" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the court of appeals properly found that the identification procedures at issue in this case were impermissibly suggestive, but the identification procedures ultimately did not violate Defendant's statutory or due process rights.After a trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress the testimony of two eyewitnesses, including their in-court identifications of Defendant as the perpetrator of the crimes. The court of appeals remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the eyewitness testimony was the result of impermissibly suggestive identification procedures and that the testimony was prejudicial. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals properly found that the eyewitnesses were subjected to witness identification procedures that were impermissibly suggestive but erred in failing to rule that the identification was sufficiently of independent origin to negate a substantial likelihood of a misidentification. View "State v. Malone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor child on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment, holding that the findings in the trial court's order were insufficient to support the termination of Father's parental rights on either of the grounds upon which the termination order rested.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights in the child based on neglect and willful abandonment and that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to support its determination that Father's parental rights to the child were subject to termination on the grounds of neglect and abandonment and that the trial court did not fail to act impartially during the termination hearing. View "In re N.D.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Mother's brief lacked merit. After hearings, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the child in placement outside of the home for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to his removal. Mother appealed. Counsel for Mother then filed a no-merit brief on Mother's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights, 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.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Father's brief lacked merit.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment. Father appealed. Counsel for Father then filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.B.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Mother's brief were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal. Mother appealed, and counsel for Mother filed a no-merit brief on Mother's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the order was supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re Z.O.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the decision of the court of appeals determining that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss charges of felonious obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute parent, holding that the court of appeals erred in finding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the second of two felonious obstruction of justice charges.Defendant was charged with accessory after the fact to sexual activity to a substitute parent and two counts of felonious obstruction of justice, the second of which alleged that Defendant, the victim's mother, denied the sheriff's department and child protective services access to the victim. The jury convicted Defendant as charged. The court of appeals reversed the second of Defendant's felonious obstruction of justice convictions and Defendant's accessory after the fact conviction. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the record contained sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for felonious obstruction of justice based upon a denial of access to the victim; and (2) the court of appeals properly concluded that the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute parent. View "State v. Ditenhafer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint alleging that the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) breached a 1998 agreement between the parties, holding that the court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's claim that the State Defendants breached a settlement agreement in two respects.Centuries after the disappearance of two ships Plaintiff, a marine research and recovery corporation, received permits from DNCR to search for the ships. After discovering one of the ships, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with DNCR in 1998 agreeing to forgo certain rights in exchange for other rights. Plaintiff later alleged that DNCR breached the agreement in several ways, and the parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2013. Plaintiff later sued, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the State Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court properly dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the State Defendants for breach of the 1998 agreement; but (2) the trial court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's claims for breach of the 2013 settlement agreement stemming from DNCR's alleged violations of Plaintiff's media and promotional rights and from DNCR's non-renewal of Plaintiff's permit to search for the second ship. View "Intersal, Inc. v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Mother's brief were meritless.The trial court terminated Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and committing a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to another child of the parent. After Mother gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, counsel for Mother filed a no-merit brief on her behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the trial court's order was based on clear and convincing evidence supporting statutory grounds for termination of parental rights. View "In re T.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court declining to terminate Father's parental rights to his children based on its determination that termination would not be in the best interests of the children, holding that the trial court's ruling was within its discretion.Bethany Christian Services filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights to his two children on the grounds of neglect, failure too legitimate, and dependency. The court subsequently entered an order declaring Father to be the children's father. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order concluding that although a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights, termination was not in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights was not in the children's best interests was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason. View "In re A.U.D." on Justia Law