Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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