Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Mother's parental rights.In terminating Mother's parental rights the trial court concluded that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination based on grounds of neglect, willfully leaving her daughter in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to her removal, and abandonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings fully supported its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re C.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction of felony larceny, holding that insufficient evidence existed to support the larceny charge.After two remands by the Supreme Court, the court of appeals vacated Defendant's larceny conviction, holding that a fatal variance existed between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial and that the State's evidence was insufficient to raise a jury question on the larceny charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that this Court need not resolve whether a fatal variance existed because the court of appeals correctly held that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the larceny charge. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their minor child, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not conduct an inquiry into Mother's competency; (2) clear, cogent and competent evidence supported the district court's findings of fact, which led to the court's conclusion of law that Father's parental rights should be terminated based upon his neglect of the child; and (3) Parents failed to show that the district court had a duty to recuse itself from hearing the termination case. View "In re Z.V.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their two minor children, holding that the district court made sufficient findings of fact, based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence, to support the court's conclusions that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights and that termination was in the children's best interests.The district court found that the evidence established facts sufficient to support the termination of Parents' parental rights based on the failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the children's removal at the time of the termination hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly concluded that Mother's parental rights should be terminated based upon her failure to make reasonable progress; and (2) the district court's orders were supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re I.G.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.The district court terminated the parental rights of both Mother and the children's father, finding that the evidence supported the termination of the parents' parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother's challenges to the court's findings of fact were unavailing; (2) the district court did not err by concluding that, under the circumstances, a ground existed to terminate Mother's parental rights for willful failure to make reasonable progress; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that it would be in one of the children's best interest that Mother's parental rights be terminated. View "In re A.R.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court arrested judgment with respect to Defendant's conviction for committing a sex offense against a child and vacated the trial court's judgment, holding that the indictment underlying Defendant's conviction for committing a sex offense against a child was fatally defective.Defendant was convicted of committing a sex offense against a child and taking indecent liberties with a child in 2013. The jury found as an aggravating factor that Defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense. The trial court consolidated Defendant's convictions for judgment and determined that Defendant should be sentenced in the aggravated range. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's sentence, determining that the trial court had failed to hold the statutorily required jury instruction conference before submitting the aggravating factor to the jury. The Supreme Court vacated and reversed in part the court of appeals' decision, holding (1) the trial court's failure to conduct the jury instruction conference prior to submission of the existence of the relevant statutory aggravating factor to the jury did not materially prejudice Defendant; and (2) Defendant's indictment for committing a sex offense against a child was fatally defective. The court remanded for resentencing based upon Defendant's conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child. View "State v. Corey" on Justia Law

In this case involving a disputed property line the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim and granting summary judgment and other relief to Defendant, holding that, under the circumstances, the intent of the parties concerning the boundary line was a question of fact to be determined by a jury.Only by reference to a recorded map, Defendant took ownership of the contested property. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment and to quiet title. Defendants answered claiming the disputed land to be within its boundary. The conveyances at issue only referenced lot numbers on a recorded map, and the disputed property line as shown on the map was ambiguous. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the intent of the parties as shown on the map is ambiguous, a jury issue existed, and therefore, summary judgment was improperly granted. View "Daughtridge v. Tanager Land, LLC" on Justia Law

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