Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to Troy, holding that the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(9) was sufficient to support termination of Mother's parental rights and that the trial court made sufficient findings in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Troy's best interest.On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights because the court did not receive sufficient evidence or make adequate findings of fact. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the trial court did not err by concluding that grounds existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(9) to terminate Mother's parental rights and that the trial court made sufficient findings in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Troy's best interest. View "In re T.N.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that a law enforcement officer's warrantless search of Defendant's USB drive was not permissible under the "private-search doctrine," holding that the State failed to carry its burden of presenting competent evidence establishing that the officer's warrantless search was permissible under the private-search doctrine.The officer conducted a warrantless search of Defendant's USB drive following a prior search of the USB drive by a private individual. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the warrantless search was not authorized under the private-search doctrine but that remand was appropriate to determine whether probable cause existed to issue the search warrant without the evidence obtained from the unlawful search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the private-search doctrine cannot apply to a thumb drive because, even though some of the thumb drive has been previously opened, an officer cannot proceed with "virtual certainty" that nothing else of significance is in the device. View "State v. Terrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of a divided panel of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's convictions of felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny, holding that the evidence presented at trial concerning Defendant's possession of allegedly stolen property was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction under the doctrine of recent possession.Defendant's conviction was based on items not found in Defendant's possession from an earlier breaking and entering. At issue in this case was whether there was substantial evidence under the doctrine of recent possession that Defendant had the "power and intent to control the [stolen] goods" to the exclusion of others. The Supreme Court held that the evidence presented at trial constituted substantial evidence of the second prong under the doctrine of recent possession - exclusive possession - and therefore, the court of appeals majority erred in vacating Defendant's convictions. View "State v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court denying a juvenile's motion to dismiss a petition alleging disorderly conduct, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that the State's evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication for disorderly conduct.Two juvenile petitions were filed in the district court alleging that Juvenile was delinquent because of his commission of the offenses of disorderly conduct and resisting a public officer. The district court denied Juvenile's motion to dismiss the petitions and adjudicated Juvenile to be delinquent. The court of appeals vacated the adjudications, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support Juvenile's adjudications for the offenses. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in holding that the State's evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication for disorderly conduct; but (2) the court of appeals did not err in vacating the adjudication and disposition orders in regard to the charge of resisting a public officer. View "In re T.T.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss a charge of possession of heroin for insufficiency of the evidence, holding that the record contained ample evidence tending to show that the substance that Defendant allegedly possessed was heroin.On appeal, Defendant argued that the state's evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the seized evidence was heroin. The court of appeals agreed, holding that because the State failed to present evidence of a scientifically valid chemical analysis identifying the seized substance as heroin, the State had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the seized substance was heroin. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where Defendant told an identifying officer that she had ingested heroin, several investigating officers identified the substance seized as heroin, and the substance Defendant was charged with possessing field-tested positive for heroin on two different occasions, the evidence was sufficient to support the charge. View "State v. Osborne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the determination of the trial court that the parental rights of Mother in her daughter were subject to termination pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2), holding that the unchallenged findings of fact adequately supported the court's conclusion that Mother had failed to show reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the child's removal.In reversing the trial court's order, the court of appeals determined that a number of the trial court's findings of fact lacked sufficient evidentiary support and did not support the court's conclusion that Mother had failed to correct the domestic violence-related problems that had led to the child's removal from Mother's home. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the facts supported the trial court's conclusion that Mother failed to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that resulted in her daughter's removal from the family home. View "In re B.O.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgments of the trial courts allowing Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the trial courts' findings of fact failed to support their legal conclusion that the investigating officer lacked the probable cause needed to place Defendant under arrest for impaired driving.Defendant was charged with driving while subject to an impairing substance. In granting the motion to suppress, the trial courts concluded that the investigating officer lacked probable cause to place Defendant under arrest for driving while impaired. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the facts supported a conclusion that the officer had probable cause to stop and cite Defendant for driving while impaired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the undisputed facts supported the officer's decision to place Defendant under arrest for impaired driving. View "State v. Parisi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals upholding the trial court's distributive award in an equitable distribution action that contemplated the use of a spouse's separate property, holding that the trial court lacked statutory authority to order disposition of Plaintiff's separate property.Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in district court seeking equitable distribution of the parties' marital property, alimony, and post-separation support. The trial court entered an equitable distribution order and denied Plaintiff's request for an award of alimony. Regarding the property distribution, the trial court determined that Plaintiff must pay Defendant a distributive award and that Plaintiff must liquidate her separate property to pay the distributive award. The court of appeals sanctioned the trial court's distribution of Plaintiff's separate property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in upholding the trial court's order directing Plaintiff to liquidate her separate property to pay down the distributive award because it effectively distributed Plaintiff's separate property; and (2) discretionary review of whether N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-20 grants corporations standing to seek reimbursement for debts was improvidently granted. View "Crowell v. Crowell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights to his two children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests.After Mother relinquished her parental rights to the children the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Respondent's parental rights regarding the two children. The trial court further concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Respondent's parental rights be terminated. Respondent appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Respondent's parental rights. View "In re Z.L.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the opinion of the court of appeals granting Defendant a new trial on his abduction of a child and statutory rape charges on the grounds that Defendant was prejudiced by the trial court's decision to allow his affidavit of indigence to be admitted to prove his age, holding that the admission of the affidavit was erroneous, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.After Defendant was indicted Defendant completed and signed an affidavit of indigence so that a court-appointed attorney could be assigned to his case. During trial, the trial court allowed into evidence a copy of the affidavit to prove Defendant's age, which was an element of the charges. The court of appeals granted Defendant a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred in admitting the affidavit in violation of Defendant's right against self-incrimination to prove an element of charges against him. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court committed constitutional error by allowing Defendant's affidavit of indigence to be admitted into evidence; and (2) there was no reasonable possibility that the admission of Defendant's affidavit of indigence might have contributed to the conviction. View "State v. Diaz" on Justia Law