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

The case involved Deontre Antwun Horne, who was convicted of eight counts of discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle in operation inflicting serious bodily injury after he and a companion fired multiple shots at a vehicle driven by Aimee McRae following a traffic accident. The Court of Appeals arrested judgment on one of the convictions and vacated the sentencing judgments, remanding for resentencing. The core reasoning was that while multiple shots can support separate charges, the prosecution's evidence, including McRae's testimony of being shot about seven times and an officer observing four wounds, was insufficient to prove eight separate instances of serious bodily injury as required by the statute. The court therefore reduced the number of valid convictions accordingly.

criminal lawguns

This case concerns whether a North Carolina trial court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a Texas resident, Daniel Goldstein, in two civil actions filed by Dan and Leora Greenhaus. The plaintiffs sought a domestic violence protective order and a no-contact order, alleging that Goldstein had sent thousands of harassing emails, texts, and packages to them, their employers, family, and associates in North Carolina since 2022. Goldstein moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), providing an affidavit that he had never visited or conducted business in the state. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motions, finding jurisdiction proper based on the directed communications. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the applicable standard of proof, the sufficiency of the trial court's findings, and the application of the long-arm statute and due process requirements.

procedurefamily law

The case involved an employee, Jeffrey Smith, who suffered a stroke while at work at a Tropical Smoothie Cafe owned and operated by the defendants and alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to promptly recognize his condition and summon emergency medical services, resulting in permanent injuries. Smith filed a workers' compensation claim that was dismissed without prejudice and then brought negligence claims in superior court. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act barred the superior court action. The trial court denied the motions, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the claims fell within the Act's exclusivity provision and remanding for dismissal. The court reasoned that the injury occurred in the course of employment and was subject to the workers' compensation system rather than a civil tort action.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involved homeowners in a planned community who challenged their obligation to pay clubhouse dues assessed by the property owners' association following a prior lawsuit judgment against the association and its subsequent bankruptcy reorganization. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners, but the Court of Appeals reversed that order and remanded the case. The court held that the 1999 Declaration of Covenants created a valid, enforceable real covenant requiring all lot owners to pay the dues to the association for the clubhouse facilities, regardless of actual use, and that the owners' deeds explicitly subjected their properties to this obligation. The court further reasoned that the association's authority under the Declaration and the North Carolina Planned Community Act, combined with a prior appellate decision upholding the dues agreement, bound the homeowners even after the bankruptcy plan restructured payments.

property

This case involves an appeal by the respondent-father from a permanency planning order in a juvenile proceeding concerning his minor child, A.R.H. The trial court had continued custody with non-parents, set a permanent plan of concurrent custody and adoption, and eliminated reunification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the permanency planning aspects, holding that the trial court's findings regarding the parents' unchanged housing situation and inconsistency with the child's health and safety satisfied the statutory requirements under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d). However, it remanded the case to amend the visitation provisions to explicitly state whether visits are supervised, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905.1(c).

family lawprocedure

This case involved the Smoky Mountain Country Club Property Owners’ Association seeking to foreclose on a lien for unpaid assessments against a lot owned by Robinson Joseph Myers and Elizabeth Owl-Myers under the North Carolina Planned Community Act. The Swain County Clerk of Superior Court initially authorized the foreclosure sale, but the Myers appealed; the trial court later dismissed the proceeding without holding further hearings, concluding the Association lacked standing because it did not own the debt. The Association appealed that dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-21.16(d1) and § 47F-3-116(f)(7) require the superior court to conduct a de novo hearing on appeal from the clerk’s order, at which the court must independently consider evidence and make findings on the existence of a valid debt, default, and proper notice before dismissing or authorizing the sale.

propertyprocedure

This case involves an appeal by a respondent-father from a North Carolina trial court's review order in a juvenile neglect proceeding concerning his minor child, A.R.H. After the child was adjudicated neglected due to unsafe living conditions in a camper without running water or adequate facilities, the trial court awarded legal and physical custody to non-parent caregivers, the Lingerfelts, while maintaining a plan of reunification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the custody determination, holding that the Lingerfelts' testimony sufficiently demonstrated their understanding of the legal significance of custody under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j), without requiring professional-level legal knowledge. The court dismissed as moot the father's challenge to the visitation provisions because a subsequent permanency planning order had revised the visitation schedule and was addressed in a companion appeal.

family law

The case involved defendant Davon Kareen Allen's appeal from his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon after a jury trial in Wake County Superior Court. The defendant argued that the trial court committed plain error by admitting detectives' lay opinion testimony describing and interpreting grainy surveillance video footage of the shooting, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to that testimony. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant failed to demonstrate plain error because substantial independent circumstantial evidence—including cellphone records placing him near the scene, his distinctive red Nissan with a black bumper, and timing of his movements—supported the verdict, and any error did not likely affect the outcome. The court further rejected the ineffective assistance claim, finding no prejudice under the Strickland standard given the strength of the other evidence and the jury's own review of the videos. The court affirmed the judgments, finding no prejudicial error.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Posey, the defendant appealed his jury convictions on two counts each of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine, which arose from a traffic stop where officers found multiple bags of the drugs in his vehicle and on his passenger. The defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple possession, contending that the evidence could have supported a finding that he possessed only a small quantity below the trafficking threshold. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed the issue de novo and affirmed, holding that no such instruction was required because the defendant's testimony consistently denied any knowledge or possession of the drugs at all, providing no rational basis for the jury to convict on a lesser offense. The court concluded the trial was free from prejudicial error and upheld the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the termination of Respondent-Mother's parental rights to her three minor children by the McDowell County District Court after the children were removed from the home in 2023 due to allegations of neglect, including substance abuse by the parents, inadequate supervision, poor home conditions with safety hazards and animal waste, and failure to provide proper medical care for one child's cystic fibrosis. The trial court adjudicated the children neglected, found the mother had completed some elements of her DSS case plan but denied responsibility for the removal and any abuse or neglect, and concluded there was a likelihood of future neglect. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, holding that the findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and established grounds for termination based on neglect under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1).

family law

The case involved defendant Thomas Davis Ingram, Jr., who was convicted after a bench trial of fifteen counts of first-degree sex offense with a child and fifteen counts of indecent liberties with a child based on allegations that he sexually abused his stepdaughter over several years. Ingram appealed, arguing in part that his waivers of counsel were invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sex offense convictions, finding that Ingram had made knowing and voluntary waivers of counsel on those original charges, but vacated the indecent liberties convictions because the trial court failed to verify a valid waiver after those additional charges were later added by indictment. The court remanded for resentencing on the affirmed convictions after consolidating the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the resentencing of Steven Antwone Watson, who was convicted as a juvenile of two counts of first-degree murder in 1999 and originally sentenced to consecutive life terms without parole. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, the trial court held a hearing pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.19A et seq. and determined that the sentences did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded for resentencing because the written order failed to include the required findings regarding the presence or absence of mitigating factors as mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.19C. The State conceded the error in the order, and the court did not address the defendant's additional claims regarding the Eighth Amendment or ineffective assistance of counsel.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Tronie Lemar Hollis, who was convicted after a jury trial of trafficking in opium or heroin and the misdemeanor offense of knowingly keeping or maintaining a dwelling for the use, storage, or sale of a controlled substance under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-108(a)(7). The charges arose from a police search of a hotel room where fentanyl pills and other items were found, along with the defendant's wallet; he had used the room briefly with permission from the registered occupant but had no key or financial responsibility for it. Defendant appealed only the misdemeanor conviction, arguing insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed that conviction, holding that the State failed to present substantial evidence that the defendant possessed or exercised dominion and control over the room, as required by precedents distinguishing temporary guests from those who keep or maintain a place.

criminal law

This case involves an appeal by respondent-mother and respondent-father from a North Carolina trial court order terminating their parental rights to their infant daughter K.S. (pseudonym Kay). Cabarrus County DSS removed the child after reports of domestic violence in her presence, the mother's untreated mental health issues and erratic behavior, and repeated unstable placements, leading to stipulations and findings that she was a neglected and dependent juvenile. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, holding that the unchallenged findings showed both parents failed to comply with the case plan requirements—including mental health and anger management assessments, drug screens, parenting classes, stable housing, and income verification—establishing grounds for termination based on neglect under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and a high probability of repetition if the child were returned.

family law