Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her daughter C.M.C., holding that the trial court did not err by entering the set of termination orders which Mother sought to challenge before this Court.After a hearing, the trial court announced that the parental rights of Mother should be terminated. Adjudication and disposition orders signed by Judge Monica Leslie, rather than the trial court, were filed. Judge Leslie subsequently vacated the adjudication and dispositional orders that she had signed, and the trial court entered a separate dispositional order in which it determined that the termination of Mother's rights was in the child's best interests. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by entering the challenged termination orders on the grounds that Judge Leslie lacked the authority to vacate the earlier termination orders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Judge Leslie did not err by vacating the initial set of termination orders that she signed in this case, and the trial court did not err by entering the set of termination orders that Mother sought to challenge before the Supreme Court. View "In re C.M.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court ordered that Angela C. Foster be censured for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 3A(3) and 3A(4) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-376.The Judicial Standards Commission counsel filed a statement of charges against District Court Judge Angela C. Foster (Respondent) alleging that she had engaged in conduct inappropriate to her judicial office. Based on its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission recommended that the Supreme Court censure Respondent. The Supreme Court concluded that the Commission's recommended censure was appropriate and ordered that Respondent be censured. View "In re Foster" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of taking indecent liberties with a child and determining that the State presented sufficient evidence of the N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1340.16(d)(15) aggravating factor to submit that aggravating factor to the jury, holding that there was not sufficient evidence to submit the aggravating factor to the jury.The aggravating factor at issue on appeal was that Defendant "took advantage of a position of trust or confidence, including a domestic relationship, to commit the offense[s]." The court of appeals determined that there was a permissible inference that because of the victim's extreme reliance on her mother, the victim, who was three years old at the time of the offense, would trust and rely on Defendant, her mother's boyfriend, even though the victim only interacted with Defendant in person on two occasions. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the State's evidence at trial was insufficient to establish the trust or confidence aggravating factor because the State failed to show that the relationship between the victim and Defendant was conducive to her reliance on him. View "State v. Helms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, C.B.C., on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment, holding that the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of Father's parental rights.After Father was convicted of multiple felonies and began serving his sentence Petitioners filed a second petition to terminate Father's parental rights. After a hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights, finding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect and willful abandonment and that termination was in C.B.C.'s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(7). View "In re C.B.C." 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 the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the omission of pertinent facts in an officer's search warrant application resulted in a lack of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant for either Defendant's residence or vehicle.The officer in this case possessed information that would suffice to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant but failed to include key portions of this information in his affidavit supporting the warrant. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the affidavit sufficiently established probable cause to support the magistrate's issuance of a warrant authorizing a search of Defendant's residence and vehicle. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause to search the vehicle but was insufficient to establish probable cause to search the residence. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the motion to suppress should have been allowed as to evidence seized from both Defendant's residence and vehicle. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminated Respondent's parental rights based on the grounds of willful abandonment and willful failure to pay child support, holding that sufficient evidence supported the termination of Respondent's parental rights and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests.Petitioner sought to terminate Respondent's parental rights to the parties' children on the grounds of willful failure to pay child support and willful abandonment. After a hearing, the trial court terminated Respondent's parental rights to the children on the ground of willful abandonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by finding that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights to the children and in concluding that the termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re E.H.P" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals dismissing Respondent's appeal from the trial court's order terminating Respondent's parental rights, holding that Rule 3.1 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure mandates an independent review on appeal of the issues contained in a "no-merit" brief filed in appeal from an order terminating a respondent's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Respondent's parental rights on the basis of neglect and failure to make reasonable progress. On appeal, Respondent's attorney filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(d). The court of appeals dismissed the appeal because "[n]o issues have been argued or preserved for review in accordance with our Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' decision and affirmed the trial court's order terminating Respondent's parental rights, holding that the text of Rule 3.1(d) plainly contemplates appellate review of the issues contained in a no-merit brief, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in failing to conduct an independent review of the issues set out in the no-merit brief filed by Respondent's counsel. View "In re L.E.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgment revoking Defendant's probation after his probation period expired without making a finding of fact that good caused existed to do so under the circumstances, holding that such a finding is statutorily required.Specifically at issue was whether the court of appeals erred by affirming the trial court's revoking of Defendant's probation without making a specific finding that good cause existed to do so despite the expiration of Defendant's probationary period. The Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeals did so err, holding that the trial court's order failed to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1344(f)(3) by activating Defendant's sentences without first making a finding of good cause to revoke Defendant's probation despite the expiration of his probationary term. View "State v. Morgan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing, but only as to Defendant individually, the superior court's determination that North Carolina's satellite-based monitoring (SBM) of sex offenders is constitutional, holding that the court of appeals erred by limiting its holding to the constitutionality of the SBM program as applied only to Defendant.Defendant was statutorily required to enroll in the SBM program and to wear an ankle monitor at all times for his lifetime based on his convictions for sex crimes. Defendant argued that the imposition of the monitoring violated his constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The trial court found that the SBM program was not unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court held that a State conducts a search when it attaches a device to a person's body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual's movements. On remand, the superior court upheld the imposition of lifetime SBM on Defendant. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that lifetime SBM of Defendant was unreasonable. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed, holding that the program is unconstitutional as applied to all individuals who, like Defendant, are subject to mandatory lifetime SBM based solely on their status as a "recidivist." View "State v. Grady" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder and other offenses and sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole, holding that the trial court violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him by limiting Defendant's cross-examination of the State's principal witness, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.At Defendant's murder trial, Lakenda Malachi was the only witness to provide direct evidence of Defendant's presence at the scene. Defendant sought to impeach Malachi's testimony, but the trial court sustained objections to defense counsel's questions. After Defendant was convicted he appealed. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court committed constitutional error by restricting Defendant's cross-examination of Malachi and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly found that the trial court committed prejudicial error. View "State v. Bowman" on Justia Law