John Marsh Tyson

The case involved an appeal by B.E.G., Jr., a 22-year-old man, from a district court order involuntarily committing him to inpatient psychiatric care for up to 14 days after he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and manic symptoms. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the commitment order. The court reasoned that the trial court's findings of mental illness and danger to self or others were supported by competent evidence, including testimony from the treating physician regarding the respondent's pressured speech, delusions, lack of sleep, erratic driving, job loss, refusal to take medication, and behaviors posing risks of injury to himself and others.

healthcareprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Gregory Lavern Kennedy's appeal from his first-degree murder conviction in Davidson County Superior Court, where a jury found him guilty based on premeditation and deliberation after a fatal incident at his home following a party. Defendant argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss, claiming insufficient evidence of premeditation and that the State failed to disprove self-defense. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding substantial evidence supported premeditation and deliberation and that the self-defense claim turned on disputed credibility issues properly resolved by the jury rather than undisputed facts. The court also upheld the jury instructions on self-defense, imperfect self-defense, and lesser-included offenses, concluding the trial was free from prejudicial error.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the termination of parental rights of two parents to their minor child, Noah, by the Alexander County Department of Social Services due to ongoing issues with neglect, domestic violence, and substance abuse. The parents appealed the trial court's order, arguing that it was error for different judges to preside over the adjudicatory and dispositional phases of the proceedings. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, holding that the two phases are statutorily separate with distinct standards and that Rule 63 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not prohibit substitution of judges between them when the original judge resigns. The court found no prejudice to the parents from the change in judges, as each order was based on evidence from hearings over which the respective judge presided.

family lawprocedure

The case involved defendant James Everette Haney, who had been placed on supervised probation after pleading guilty to drug possession charges; his probation officer later filed reports alleging multiple violations including failure to report, changing address without notice, and absconding. At the revocation hearing, defense counsel admitted to all violations except one alleging a new criminal offense, and the trial court revoked probation and activated a reduced sentence based on those admissions, including the absconding violation that permitted revocation under state law. On appeal, the defendant argued ineffective assistance of counsel under Harbison standards because counsel made admissions without his consent or full consultation. The Court of Appeals vacated the revocation order and remanded for a new hearing, holding that the record did not clearly establish the defendant's knowing consent to the admissions that led to revocation. A dissent argued the appeal should be dismissed for failure to file timely notice of appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Daedalus, LLC and Mecklenburg County over whether five duplex structures, after subdivision into ten lots, complied with building code requirements for firewalls and certificates of occupancy; the County viewed the subdivided units as townhouses under the code definitions and threatened to revoke the COs, while owners of the units sought damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the County had standing to pursue a declaratory judgment on the meaning of its ordinances but reversed the awards of damages and attorney fees to the County and the intervenor owners, holding that the owners lacked standing to assert damages claims in this action. The court remanded for further consideration of the plaintiffs' claims under the 2012 and 2018 versions of the building codes that were in effect when the projects were approved, rather than the 2024 code changes. Core reasoning centered on the plain language of the applicable code definitions at the time of approval and the legal requirements for standing to seek damages versus declaratory relief.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this case from Swain County Superior Court, the Smoky Mountain Country Club Property Owners’ Association appealed two trial court orders that stayed a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding on a lien assessed against property owned by the Myers in a planned community under the North Carolina Planned Community Act. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because both stay orders had become moot: the underlying foreclosure had been dismissed by the trial court, rendering the stays without practical effect, and the parties’ appeals had already proceeded normally to briefing and decision. The court further observed that the second stay order was improper because a trial court lacks authority to stay a party’s statutory right to appeal from a final order under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277(a) and 7A-27(b)(3)(a).

propertyprocedure