John S. Arrowood

This case involved a will caveat filed by the decedent's children challenging a revised will presented for probate by his wife, on grounds that the document was improperly executed. The trial court granted summary judgment to the caveators after finding that the two witnesses had not signed the will themselves, as required by N.C.G.S. § 31-3.3, but instead had a notary sign their names at their request. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute does not permit witnesses to have a third party sign on their behalf even if done in their presence and with their consent, and that the revised will was therefore invalid as a matter of law. The decision rested on a de novo review of the statutory attestation requirements and the undisputed facts about how the signatures were made.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by a mother from a district court order terminating her parental rights to her young son, Colton, after the Person County Department of Social Services filed a neglect petition due to concerns over substance abuse, domestic violence exposure, and inability to care for the child. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, finding that the trial court's unchallenged findings of fact demonstrated the mother's inconsistent engagement with her case plan, missed drug screens, visits, and meetings, and failure to address the issues leading to the child's removal. The court reasoned that these facts supported a conclusion of likely future neglect under state law, providing sufficient grounds for termination of parental rights, and did not need to address an additional ground.

family law

This case concerns a defendant charged with driving while impaired who moved to suppress evidence from his arrest, arguing the officer lacked probable cause. After the district court verbally granted the motion but failed to enter a required written preliminary determination, the State appealed to superior court for de novo review; the superior court denied the motion and remanded the case. The defendant then pled guilty while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. On appeal, the Court of Appeals examined whether the superior court had jurisdiction to issue a final denial of the motion given the district court's failure to enter the final order as mandated by N.C.G.S. § 20-38.6(f), concluding that the superior court's order was not properly appealable as a final judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Lajarvis Marquez Jones, who was convicted in Craven County Superior Court of possessing a controlled substance (buprenorphine) on the premises of a penal institution and attaining habitual felon status after being found with the substance while incarcerated. Jones appealed, challenging both the underlying conviction and the trial court's decision to dismiss a juror after an investigation into potential misconduct involving the juror's conversation with an outside individual. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the evidence supported the possession charge and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in investigating and addressing the juror issue by removing the juror and substituting an alternate.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved appeals by a mother and father from North Carolina district court orders terminating their parental rights to three minor children, following the Gaston County Department of Health and Human Services taking custody amid reports of improper care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination orders as to the mother for all three children and as to the father for two of them. The court reasoned that the parents' extensive prior history with child protective services—including prior removals of other children due to neglect, substance abuse, mental health issues, and unsafe conditions—combined with their failure to make progress on case plans (such as ongoing drug use, lack of stable housing or employment verification, and inconsistent contact) established a likelihood of future neglect. For the father, additional factors like his incarceration on related charges supported the finding that he could not remedy conditions within a reasonable time.

family law

In Hogan v. Thayer, plaintiff Tyler Scott Hogan sued Terrance and Kristen Thayer along with multiple LLCs for fraud, civil conspiracy, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, and related claims stemming from an alleged fraudulent drop-shipping investment venture that promised high returns but involved misrepresentations about operations and Amazon policy violations. Defendants appealed an interlocutory order granting plaintiff's motion for sanctions after they failed to provide full responses to discovery requests despite a prior order to compel. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions, holding that the discovery order applied to all defendants, who had not adequately complied or properly challenged its scope, resulting in the complaint's allegations being deemed admitted against all sixteen defendants.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Tyrell Devon Warren appealing his convictions for second-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, hit and run, assault with a deadly weapon, and robbery with a dangerous weapon, stemming from incidents in Asheville including a shooting death and robberies. The North Carolina Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court's denial of the defendant's speedy trial motion and no plain error in the jury instructions regarding common law robbery. However, the court vacated the assault with a deadly weapon conviction on double jeopardy grounds, as it is a lesser-included offense of robbery with a dangerous weapon arising from the same incident, and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Christopher James Palmiter's conviction for failure to report the disappearance of his stepdaughter Mary, who vanished around November 2022 after living with Palmiter and his wife Diana in North Carolina. Palmiter appealed his conviction, challenging the trial court's exclusion of a text message from Diana to a relative as hearsay and arguing it affected his credibility on whether he knew of the disappearance. The Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the conviction, concluding that any evidentiary error was harmless because other evidence, including Palmiter's own testimony and statements to police, demonstrated his awareness that Mary was missing for weeks before reporting it.

criminal law

The case involved Henderson Jones Atwater, who was convicted of seven counts of discharging a barreled weapon into an occupied vehicle, five counts of injury to personal property, three counts of injury to real property, and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, arising from thirteen incidents in 2020 in which vehicles, buildings, and people near Holly Springs, North Carolina, were shot at with a BB or pellet gun. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and found no error. The court reasoned that the State introduced sufficient evidence, including descriptions of damage from similar shootings and the muzzle velocities of pellet rifles found in the defendant's possession, for the jury to reasonably infer that the weapon qualified as a deadly weapon when used in the charged manner.

criminal lawguns

This case involves a stepparent adoption petition filed by the petitioner for a child conceived via artificial insemination, where the biological mother and her spouse are listed on the birth certificate. The respondent-father objected, claiming improper service of the adoption notice and lack of personal jurisdiction, and he sought to require his consent; the trial court denied the objection, found consent unnecessary because the father had not preserved his parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 48-3-601 and failed to respond timely after proper notice, and later denied his Rule 60 and related motions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the father received actual notice in April 2023 but did not act within 30 days, that his attorney's participation waived jurisdictional challenges, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuances given the father's failure to appear or request information properly. The core reasoning centered on the adequacy of service, waiver through participation in hearings, and the father's inaction regarding parental rights preservation.

family lawprocedure

This case involved the termination of a mother's parental rights to her two children, who had been removed from her custody after findings of neglect based on incidents including leaving one child unsupervised in a car, domestic violence, and inadequate care for the other child's medical needs. The trial court terminated the mother's rights on grounds of neglect, citing her limited visits, lack of consistent progress on her case plan, and ongoing instability, which supported a likelihood of future neglect. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by evidence of the mother's fitness at the time of the hearing, including recent assessments by social workers. The court distinguished the case from prior precedent requiring current evidence of fitness and noted that only one ground for termination was needed.

family law

This case arose from a lawsuit by plaintiff Tyler Scott Hogan against Terrance and Kristen Thayer and multiple related LLCs, alleging fraud, breach of contract, unfair trade practices, and other claims stemming from a failed drop-shipping investment scheme promoted by the defendants. The defendants appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, arguing that a valid arbitration agreement existed and had not been waived. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that no enforceable arbitration agreement was shown and that, even if one existed, the defendants had waived any right to arbitration through conduct inconsistent with that right, including filing an answer and motions, serving inadequate discovery responses, and delaying their arbitration request for over six months, which prejudiced the plaintiff. The court applied standard contract principles under the Federal Arbitration Act and North Carolina law to reach this conclusion without creating special rules favoring arbitration.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved the North Carolina State Bar bringing a disciplinary action against attorney Richard E. Batts for multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct related to his handling of client trust funds. The Disciplinary Hearing Commission found, based on stipulated facts, that Batts had failed to reconcile his trust account, maintain accurate client ledgers, and properly deposit entrusted funds, among other issues, and imposed a one-year suspension of his law license stayed upon conditions to ensure compliance. Batts appealed, arguing errors in the findings, the sanction, and the denial of his post-trial motions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, concluding that the DHC acted within its discretion because the discipline was rationally supported by the need to protect clients and the public and no extraordinary circumstances justified modification.

business & regulatory

In State v. Jones, defendant James Arthur Jones, III was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a firearm by a felon, misdemeanor possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, and simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, and he admitted habitual felon status. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed his appeal from the trial court's judgment, addressing claims of erroneous admission of body camera footage and interview videos, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an unpreserved facial and as-applied constitutional challenge to N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 under recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The court held there was no plain error in the evidentiary rulings or counsel's performance, as the evidence was properly admitted for non-propensity purposes and did not prejudice the defendant. It declined to invoke Rule 2 to reach the constitutional argument, finding no exceptional circumstances and noting binding precedent upholding the statute. The court affirmed the judgment.

criminal lawguns

The case involved defendant Christopher Chisholm's appeal from convictions for first-degree murder, breaking or entering a motor vehicle, possession of a firearm by a felon, three counts of possession of a stolen firearm, and attaining habitual felon status, arising from a 2019 hit-and-run killing during a vehicle break-in and subsequent break-ins where firearms were stolen. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for first-degree murder, breaking or entering a motor vehicle, possession of a firearm by a felon, and habitual felon status. It vacated one count of possession of a stolen firearm due to insufficient evidence that the two firearms taken from the same vehicle were acquired in separate transactions, and remanded the remaining two possession counts for resentencing. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and plain error in jury instructions regarding the classification of a prior out-of-state conviction, finding the evidence and instructions adequate under applicable standards.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by respondent parents from a North Carolina district court order terminating their parental rights to six minor children on grounds of neglect. The Court of Appeals reviewed challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court's findings of fact regarding the parents' history of domestic violence, unsafe housing conditions, failure to complete case plans, and prior involuntary terminations of rights to other children. The court affirmed the order, holding that the findings were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and that they established statutory grounds for termination under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111, including a high likelihood of future neglect if the children were returned to the parents' care.

family law

This case involved the North Carolina Court of Appeals reviewing a trial court order that terminated a mother's parental rights to her two young sons after the Randolph County Department of Social Services took custody due to incidents of child endangerment, domestic violence, substance abuse, and neglect. The children were adjudicated neglected and dependent, and the mother failed to complete required elements of her case plan, such as substance abuse and mental health treatment, domestic violence classes, and consistent drug screens, despite some progress on housing and parenting classes. The mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief on appeal, and she did not submit arguments or appear at the termination hearing. The court affirmed the order, holding that the trial court's findings supported statutory grounds for termination based on neglect and lack of reasonable progress, that termination was in the children's best interests given their bonds with foster parents and adoptability, and that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel.

family law

In this case, defendant Richard Nathan Smathers appealed his convictions for failing to report an online identifier to the sheriff as required by North Carolina's sex offender registration statutes and for being a habitual felon. The charges arose after authorities discovered an unreported Snapchat account during a post-release supervision check, following his prior conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child. Defendant moved to dismiss on grounds that the reporting requirements in N.C.G.S. §§ 14-208.7(b)(7) and 14-208.9(e) were facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, but the trial court denied the motions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statutes are not facially invalid because they are narrowly tailored to advance the substantial government interest in gathering information to prevent sex crimes, impose no direct speech restrictions, and include sufficient limits on public disclosure of identifiers. The court reviewed the challenge de novo and found the provisions sufficiently circumscribed to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

criminal lawfree speech

The case involved Clytia Riddick, Director of the Gates County Board of Elections, who sued county human resources director Warren Perry and county manager Scott Sauer individually for tortious interference with a contract, illegal surveillance, and civil rights violations, alleging they reduced her pay after reviewing security footage of her car and acted out of racial animus. She also initially sued Gates County for conversion but voluntarily dismissed that claim. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the complaint contained only conclusory allegations without sufficient facts to support the elements of any claim, including details on any conspiracy, harassment, or connection between the pay dispute and alleged racial motivation.

electionscivil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

In State v. Blanding, defendant Mario Blanding appealed his convictions on two counts of first-degree murder following a jury trial in Durham County Superior Court. He argued that the trial court committed plain error by giving improper jury instructions on self-defense in relation to felony murder and by admitting certain evidence under Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that there was no plain error in the jury instructions, which correctly applied precedents stating that self-defense is unavailable as a defense to armed robbery as the underlying felony, and that the jury's findings established the required causal nexus between the force used and the taking of property. The court also found no plain error regarding the evidence issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

criminal lawprocedure