Permanency planning order—findings and conclusion—sufficiency of evidence—The trial court's permanency planning order granting guardianship of the minor child to her maternal grandmother was affirmed where clear and convincing evidence supported the challenged findings of fact regarding respondent-father's lack of suitable and safe housing, substance abuse, and domestic violence. In turn, those findings supported the trial court's conclusion that respondent acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent. In re I.K. , 377 N.C. 417 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

North Carolina—right to education—harassment by other students—board's deliberate indifference—sovereign immunity—Where plaintiff alleged that defendant-school board was deliberately indifferent to the continual harassment of her children by other students, she could bring a claim under the North Carolina Constitution because–as alleged–the indifference denied the children their constitutionally guaranteed right to a sound basic education pursuant to Article I, Section 15. Since plaintiff alleged a colorable constitutional claim for which no adequate state law remedy existed, sovereign immunity did not bar her claim and the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss. Deminski v. State Bd. of Educ. , 377 N.C. 406 (2021) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

State and federal—freedom of speech—right to petition the government—public rezoning hearings—Where a land developer backed out of a deal to purchase property from a real estate company (plaintiff) based on statements made by the owners of a neighboring open-quarry mine (defendants) at local public rezoning hearings, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's action against defendants for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage because defendants' statements constituted protected petitioning activity under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the North Carolina Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision reversing the trial court's order granting dismissal. Cheryl Lloyd Humphrey Land Inv. Co., LLC v. Resco Prods., Inc. , 377 N.C. 384 (2021) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Request for two-hour continuance to take medication—failure to show error or prejudice—In a termination of parental rights hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying respondent-father's request for a two-hour continuance to take his medication where respondent failed to show the denial of the motion was erroneous or that he was prejudiced by the denial of the motion. In re M.J.R.B. , 377 N.C. 453 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Prosecutor's closing argument—factual misstatements—no objection—In a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a felon where a picture had been admitted into evidence showing defendant with face and chest tattoos, but the witnesses only described the shooter as having a face tattoo, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to intervene ex mero motu when the prosecutor mistakenly stated several times in her closing argument–without objection from defendant–that the witnesses saw a chest tattoo on the shooter. Nothing suggested the misstatements were intentional and, in light of other evidence of defendant's appearance, they did not constitute an extreme or gross impropriety. State v. Parker , 377 N.C. 466 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Prosecutor's closing argument—improper statements—failure to object—prejudice requirement—In a trial for attempted first-degree murder and assault charges where defendant failed to object to the prosecutor's improper closing argument regarding his decision to plead not guilty, the trial court's failure to intervene ex mero motu was not reversible error because defendant was not prejudiced by the improper argument. The argument was a small part of the State's closing argument, the evidence of defendant's guilt was essentially uncontroverted, and the trial court instructed the jury that defendant's decision to plead not guilty could not be taken as evidence of his guilt. The improper argument, without a showing of prejudice, was not enough to grant defendant a new trial and the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and remanded for consideration of defendant's remaining arguments. State v. Goins , 377 N.C. 475 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Waiver of jury trial—statutory inquiry—harmless error review—The trial court's failure to timely conduct an inquiry with defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1201(d) to determine whether defendant fully understood and appreciated the consequences of his decision to waive his right to a jury trial was subject to harmless error review. Defendant could not demonstrate prejudice where the trial court belatedly conducted the statutory inquiry after the State rested its case, the record tended to show that defendant understood and appreciated his decision, and there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt of the charged crime. State v. Hamer , 377 N.C. 502 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Possession with intent to sell or deliver—methamphetamine—sufficiency of evidence—totality of circumstances—The State presented sufficient evidence to convict defendant of possession with intent to sell or deliver methamphetamine where officers found in the center console of defendant's vehicle a large bag containing 6.51 grams of methamphetamine, several smaller bags of an untested white crystalline substance weighing 1.5 grams, and additional clear plastic baggies; defendant had just left a residence that was under surveillance for drug activity and had a meeting planned with a drug trafficker; the quantity of methamphetamine in defendant's possession was up to 13 times the amount typically purchased for personal use; and the officers also found a loaded syringe, a bag of new syringes, a baggie of cotton balls, and a hidden safe containing clear plastic baggies–even though there was no cash or other items typically associated with the sale of drugs. State v. Blagg , 377 N.C. 482 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Indecent liberties trial—expert testimony—child victim—diagnosis of PTSD—credibility vouching—In a prosecution for taking indecent liberties with a child, there was no plain error in the admission of testimony from a licensed clinical social worker, qualified at trial as an expert witness in sexual abuse and pediatric counseling, who had evaluated the child victim and diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The expert's responses to questions about whether a PTSD diagnosis could be related to domestic violence or sexual abuse, and whether the child victim had experienced any traumas that required therapy, did not constitute impermissible vouching for the child victim's credibility because the expert did not definitively state the victim had been sexually abused or detail which traumas, if any, she had experienced. State v. Betts , 377 N.C. 519 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Indecent liberties trial—expert testimony—use of word "disclose" in reference to child victim's statements—credibility vouching—In a prosecution for taking indecent liberties with a child, there was no plain error in the use by multiple witnesses of the word "disclose" to describe the child victim's recounting of defendant's conduct against her which resulted in criminal charges. The term, by itself, did not give rise to impermissible vouching of the child victim's credibility and was therefore admissible, and defendant was not prejudiced by its use given the substantial evidence that defendant inappropriately touched the victim. State v. Betts , 377 N.C. 519 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Indecent liberties trial—past incidents of domestic violence—relevance—probative value—In a prosecution for taking indecent liberties with a child, there was no plain error in the admission of testimony regarding defendant's past incidents of domestic violence against the child victim and her mother, where the evidence was relevant to explain why the victim was afraid of defendant and delayed reporting allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated against her by him, to provide context for the victim having been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and to aid the jury in assessing the victim's credibility. State v. Betts , 377 N.C. 519 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Retail customer rewards program—electronic games—section 14-306.4—game of chance versus game of skill—In a declaratory judgment action brought by a company selling discount goods, where the company ran a rewards program through which customers could earn cash prizes by playing two electronic games, the trial court correctly determined that the program constituted an unlawful sweepstakes under N.C.G.S. § 14-306.4, which prohibits the operation of electronic gaming machines that allow users the opportunity to win prizes through games based on chance rather than "skill or dexterity." Although the second game required some skill and dexterity, the amount of cash customers could win by playing it depended on how many points they won when playing the first game, which was entirely chance-driven. The Supreme Court affirmed (as modified) the Court of Appeals' decision upholding the trial court's ruling on this matter. Crazie Overstock Promotions, LLC v. State of North Carolina , 377 N.C. 391 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Murder by starvation—elements—malice—"starvation" defined—In a prosecution for first-degree murder by starvation (N.C.G.S. § 14-17(a)), where defendant's four-year-old stepson died after defendant fed him no more than once a day for the last few months of his life, the State was not required to make a separate showing that defendant acted with malice because the malice required to prove first-degree murder is inherent in the act of starving someone. For purposes of section 14-17(a), "starvation" is the deprivation of food or liquids necessary to the nourishment of the human body and is not limited to situations involving the complete denial of all food and hydration. State v. Cheeks , 377 N.C. 528 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Murder by starvation—proximate cause—sufficiency of evidence—In a prosecution for first-degree murder by starvation (N.C.G.S. § 14-17(a)), there was sufficient evidence that starvation proximately caused the death of defendant's four-year-old stepson where a medical examiner's initial autopsy identified malnutrition and dehydration as the immediate causes of death. Although the examiner's amended autopsy report attributed the boy's death to strangulation, this opinion rested exclusively on defendant's claim that he choked his stepson, which he retracted at trial and which the trial court found to lack credibility. Additionally, other evidence–including accounts of the boy's emaciated, doll-like corpse–showed that defendant failed to feed his stepson more than once a day or to seek medical attention for him even though he was visibly hungry, thin, and malnourished in the months leading up to his death. State v. Cheeks , 377 N.C. 528 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Negligent child abuse inflicting serious injury—factual allegations—mere surplusage—consistent with trial court's determinations—In a prosecution for negligent child abuse inflicting serious injury, where the indictment alleged that defendant failed to provide his four-year-old stepson with medical treatment for over one year, despite the child having a disability, and failed to provide proper nutrition and medicine, resulting in weight loss and failure to thrive, the trial court did not err in convicting defendant on grounds that the stepson suffered from severe diaper rash, bedsores, and pressure ulcers under defendant's care. The indictment alleged all essential elements of the offense and any specific factual allegations were mere surplusage. At any rate, no fatal variance existed between the indictment and the court's grounds for convicting defendant, where the court's factual determinations were consistent with the indictment's allegations that defendant deprived the child of medical treatment. State v. Cheeks , 377 N.C. 528 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Discipline—sexual misconduct—material misrepresentations—The Supreme Court ordered that a retired district court chief judge be censured for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(4), and 3A(5) of the N.C. Code of Judicial Conduct, and pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b) for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, where the judge engaged in sexual misconduct with numerous women, failed to diligently discharge his judicial duties by constantly using his cell phone while on the bench and frequently continuing cases in order to meet with women, misused the prestige of his office, made material misrepresentations to law enforcement during an investigation, and made material misrepresentations to the Judicial Standards Commission during its investigation. The Court considered mitigating factors, including the judge's recent diagnosis with frontotemporal dementia, his prior years of distinguished service, and his agreement not to serve as a judge again. In re Pool , 377 N.C. 442 (2021) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

Grounds for termination—failure to establish paternity—In a termination of parental rights proceeding where the trial court's findings related to paternity were unchallenged by respondent-father and he did not challenge the sufficiency of the findings to support termination or that the termination was in the best interests of the children, the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to the children under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(5) was affirmed. In re M.J.R.B. , 377 N.C. 453 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Grounds for termination—failure to make reasonable progress—In a termination of parental rights hearing where the unchallenged findings of fact showed respondent-mother failed to submit to a required psychological assessment, failed to submit to a required domestic violence assessment, repeatedly failed to submit to drug screens upon request, and failed to complete a parenting program, the trial court did not err when it terminated her parental rights to the older juveniles for willful failure to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the removal of the juveniles. In re M.J.R.B. , 377 N.C. 453 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Grounds for termination—failure to make reasonable progress—12-month requirement—The trial court erred in terminating respondent-mother's parental rights to the youngest child for failure to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the removal of the child where the evidence showed that only nine months had elapsed between the custody order and the filing of the termination petition. The court was required by N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) to look at the parent's reasonable progress over a twelve-month period. In re M.J.R.B. , 377 N.C. 453 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Grounds for termination—incapable of providing proper care and supervision—necessary findings—In a termination of parental rights proceeding where–although there may have been sufficient evidence in the record to show respondent-mother was incapable of providing proper care and supervision for the youngest child–the trial court failed to make findings showing the absence of an acceptable child-care arrangement, did not identify the condition that made respondent incapable of parenting the child, and did not address whether her condition would continue for the foreseeable future, the court's order terminating respondent's parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6) was vacated and remanded for entry of a new order. In re M.J.R.B. , 377 N.C. 453 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Request for new counsel and new guardian ad litem—denied—abuse of discretion analysis—In a termination of parental rights proceeding, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying respondent-father's motions for new counsel and a new guardian ad litem (GAL) where respondent made the requests prior to the hearing and outside the presence of counsel and the GAL, failed to present good cause to remove counsel and the GAL, and did not renew the motion or otherwise address the issue once counsel arrived for the hearing. In re M.J.R.B. , 377 N.C. 453 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)