James Andrew Wynn jr

The case concerned whether the arrest of defendant Julie Yencer for driving while impaired by a Davidson College campus police officer violated the Establishment Clause because the college's religious affiliation made the statutory delegation of state police power under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74G unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding Davidson not to be a religious institution, and Yencer pled guilty while preserving the issue for appeal. The Court of Appeals held that it was bound by precedent treating Campbell University and Pfeiffer University as religious institutions, and therefore concluded that Davidson College is likewise a religious institution; applying the Lemon test, the court focused on whether the delegation created excessive government entanglement with religion.

criminal lawreligious libertyprocedure

In State v. Ligon, the defendant was convicted of first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor and taking indecent liberties with a child after police discovered photographs he took of a five-year-old girl, A.B., showing her sitting with legs spread and one image pulling aside her shorts to reveal the crotch area; the photos were taken after the defendant's dog scratched the child, and the defendant claimed they were for documentation to avoid lawsuits. The court reversed the sexual exploitation conviction, holding that the images did not meet the statutory definition of "sexual activity" under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-190.16 because lighting prevented clear visibility of private parts and the statute must be strictly construed without broadening it to cover this conduct. The court upheld the indecent liberties conviction, finding sufficient evidence that the defendant took the photos for sexual gratification based on his statements to police. The decision emphasized that the legislature could have criminalized such behavior if intended but did not.

criminal law

This case involved a defendant charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon and first-degree murder who was retried after a mistrial was declared in his initial noncapital trial due to the state's failure to provide discovery. The defendant moved to dismiss the second trial on double jeopardy grounds but was convicted, and he appealed the denial of that motion. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the defendant failed to preserve his double jeopardy claim by not objecting to the trial court's declaration of a mistrial. The reasoning relied on precedent that in noncapital cases, a defendant waives such a claim by failing to object when the trial is terminated by mistrial, and the defendant had opportunities to object here but did not.

criminal lawprocedure

In Davis v. Swan, the plaintiff sought joint legal and physical custody of the biological child of her former domestic partner, the defendant, after the couple had planned the pregnancy together through IVF, shared parenting responsibilities before and after separation, and presented themselves as co-parents. The trial court granted the plaintiff joint legal custody and secondary physical custody after applying the best-interest-of-the-child standard. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the defendant had acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected parental rights by jointly creating a family unit, fostering the plaintiff's parent-like relationship with the child, appointing the plaintiff as guardian in her will, executing powers of attorney, and sharing decision-making and financial duties. These uncontested findings established that the defendant intended the relationship to be permanent, allowing the best-interest standard to govern the custody dispute rather than a presumption favoring the biological parent. The court did not reach the defendant's remaining arguments once the threshold constitutional issue was resolved in favor of applying the best-interest test.

family lawcivil rights

The case involved a dispute over title to real property where the plaintiff had filed a notice of lis pendens after suing the initial grantee for fraudulent conveyance. The grantee then encumbered the property with a deed of trust to the defendants, but a consent judgment later restored title to the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's action to quiet title against the defendants, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the properly filed lis pendens bound subsequent encumbrancers to the judgment resolving the title dispute.

property

In Frank v. Savage, plaintiffs Tamera Frank and Peter Franklin alleged that the Yancey County Board of Commissioners improperly revoked their appointments to the county DSS Board of Directors after a change in board membership, claiming violations of North Carolina open meetings and appointment statutes as well as due process rights. The trial court granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the complaint sufficiently stated statutory claims against the Board upon which relief could be granted, but affirmed dismissal of the due process claims because plaintiffs failed to allege the absence of an adequate state remedy.

civil rightsprocedure

In this case, War Eagle, Inc. purchased a waterfront lot from William and Emma Belair via a general warranty deed containing a covenant against encumbrances, despite prior knowledge of a riparian buffer zone violation on the property that had prompted state agency correspondence. After the purchase, the Division of Water Quality demanded removal of the foundation and restoration of the buffer, leading War Eagle to sue the Belairs for breach of the covenant. The trial court granted summary judgment to the sellers, concluding that the violation was not an encumbrance under Fritts v. Gerukos and that the buyer's knowledge barred recovery. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that North Carolina precedent establishes a grantee's actual knowledge of an encumbrance does not defeat a claim for breach of the covenant against encumbrances, and remanded for a trial on damages.

property

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the father of a deceased child against the Haywood County Department of Social Services and its director, alleging negligence in failing to remove the child from her mother's custody despite known risks from the mother's drug misuse. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed that decision and remanded for entry of summary judgment in the defendants' favor. The court reasoned that DSS was performing a governmental function in investigating child safety, triggering governmental immunity, and that the county's insurance policy contained an exclusion preventing any waiver of that immunity for claims otherwise barred by sovereign immunity. The appeal was deemed proper because governmental immunity affects a substantial right.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the conviction of a defendant for felony possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and habitual felon status, based in part on forensic evidence identifying a substance as cocaine. At trial, the State introduced testimony from a forensic chemist who had not performed the analysis but had reviewed the report of the absent analyst, who was unavailable due to illness. The court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The core reasoning was that the substitute expert's testimony violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights under Crawford v. Washington and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts because it relayed testimonial statements from the absent analyst without any independent testing or prior opportunity for cross-examination by the defendant, and this error had a probable impact on the verdict when reviewed for plain error.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Armstrong, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, driving while impaired, and driving while license revoked after causing a fatal car crash by failing to stop at a stop sign while intoxicated, killing his passenger. The Court of Appeals of North Carolina reviewed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for appropriate relief, which raised issues including the admission of certain expert testimony about Narcan's effects on blood-alcohol levels and potential juror exposure to extraneous information. The court upheld the convictions, concluding that any errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, including eyewitness accounts, physical evidence from the scene, and multiple blood-alcohol tests showing levels of 0.24 and 0.26. The opinion affirmed that the trial court did not err in its rulings and found no prejudicial error warranting a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Wilson, the defendant appealed convictions arising from an armed robbery at a grocery store in which two masked men, one armed with a shotgun, ordered victims to the ground, took money, and shot one victim in the stomach. The court upheld the convictions for two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, and two counts of assault by pointing a gun, based on eyewitness identifications, statements by the defendant and codefendant, and other corroborating testimony. It reversed only the conviction for possession of stolen goods, holding that the evidence was insufficient to show the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the shotgun was stolen, because depositing the weapon in a residence did not by itself support an inference of guilty knowledge.

criminal law

This case involved a judgment creditor, Brock and Scott Holdings, Inc., seeking to modify an earlier order designating a debtor's real property as exempt from execution under North Carolina law. After the debtor claimed exemptions in 2007 with no objection from the creditor, the clerk designated the property exempt based on its reported lack of equity. Over a year later, the creditor moved to modify the exemption, citing a higher 2009 tax value as evidence of changed circumstances. The trial court denied the motion, finding the tax value had remained unchanged since 2007, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that modification under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1C-1603(g) requires proof of a change in circumstances, which was not shown here.

propertyprocedure

This case involved the Orange County Department of Social Services' motion to terminate a mother's parental rights to her child, D.W., Jr. The trial court denied the mother's request for a continuance when she failed to appear at the hearing and proceeded to terminate her parental rights based on findings of neglect, dependency, and lack of progress in correcting conditions leading to removal. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the termination order, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance because the circumstances, including inadequate notice and the rushed nature of the proceedings, impaired substantial justice. The court noted the importance of the mother's potential testimony on key issues and the judge's initial misunderstanding of the hearing's scope.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Broussard, police officers conducted a warrantless "knock and talk" at the defendant's home after an anonymous drug complaint; the defendant, who was present on the porch, expressly refused consent to enter, but his co-tenant granted permission, allowing officers to find firearms and crack cocaine in plain view during a protective sweep. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence and certain statements, ruling the entry lawful based on the co-tenant's consent. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under Georgia v. Randolph the search was unreasonable as to the defendant and that the resulting evidence and statements were inadmissible fruits of the illegal entry. The court remanded for a new trial after finding the constitutional violation prejudicial.

criminal lawcivil rightsguns

This case concerned two irrevocable trusts created in 1992 by defendant Lawrence A. Wilson, Jr. for the benefit of his children, the plaintiffs, with defendant Lawrence A. Wilson, Sr. as trustee. The trust instruments included a provision stating that the trustee need not prepare or file inventories, appraisals, accounts, or reports with any court or beneficiary. After the beneficiaries sued alleging breach of fiduciary duty and seeking an accounting of the trusts, the trial court granted defendants a protective order and partial declaratory judgment, holding that the trust provision validly overrode any disclosure duties under the North Carolina Uniform Trust Code. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that beneficiaries are always entitled to information reasonably necessary to enforce their rights under the trust or to prevent or redress a breach, and that the trust provision could not deny them such information.

propertyprocedurefamily law

In State v. Bonner, the case concerned a surety's motion to set aside a bail bond forfeiture order after the defendant, charged with cocaine trafficking and related offenses, failed to appear following entry of a guilty plea. The trial court granted the motion to set aside the forfeiture, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. The core reasoning was that the trial court's order continuing prayer for judgment while imposing punitive conditions such as 24-hour house arrest and a ban on cell phones or pagers constituted a final judgment under precedent like State v. Griffin, thereby finally disposing of the bonded charges other than by the State's dismissal with leave as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.5(b)(2) to mandate setting aside the forfeiture.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the termination of a mother's parental rights to her child, E.M., who was born in 2006 and tested positive for cocaine. The juvenile was removed from the mother's custody due to substance abuse issues, adjudicated neglected and dependent, and after the mother failed to comply with a case plan, the permanent plan changed to adoption. The trial court found grounds to terminate parental rights and concluded it was in the child's best interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals remanded the case because the trial court's order did not demonstrate consideration of all required statutory factors under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110(a), such as the likelihood of adoption, the bond between the juvenile and parent, and the quality of the relationship with a proposed adoptive parent.

family law

In this North Carolina Court of Appeals case, a mother petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the father of their two minor children after gaining sole custody following the parents' divorce; the father had been incarcerated since 2004 on a federal firearm conviction with an earliest release date in 2012 and had sent only three or four cards to the children since then. The trial court found statutory grounds for termination, including willful abandonment and neglect, and concluded that termination was in the children's best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, reasoning that the father's minimal contact over several years evinced a settled purpose to forego parental duties under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(7), that the trial court's findings were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, and that incarceration alone does not preclude a finding of willfulness.

family law

This case concerned the Randolph County Department of Social Services' petition to terminate a mother's parental rights to her child Ashley, who had been adjudicated neglected and placed in DSS custody after the mother's incarceration and inability to arrange proper care. The district court terminated the mother's rights, finding grounds including neglect under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) based on her failure to comply with court orders for parenting classes, substance abuse assessment and treatment, random drug screens, stable housing and employment, domestic violence counseling, and consistent visitation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of ongoing instability, substance issues, and lack of progress, which established neglect, and that any single statutory ground sufficed to uphold termination.

family law

This case involved a workers' compensation claim filed by plaintiff David Blevins against his employer Steel Dynamics and its insurer for a 1999 lower-back injury, including disputes over reinstatement of temporary total disability benefits, authorization for surgery recommended by a specialist, and multiple motions for contempt and sanctions. The Court of Appeals held that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to review the attorney's fees awards because the Full Industrial Commission had not yet made required findings or issued a final order distinguishing between sanctions under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-88.1 and fees under § 97-90. The court vacated the Superior Court's order and remanded with instructions for the Full Commission to make adequate findings on the pending appeal from the deputy commissioner's rulings, specify the statutory basis for any fee award, and thereby establish the proper path for further review.

labor & employmentprocedure