Dog attack—landlord liability—prior knowledge of dangerous nature—summary judgment—A landlord was not liable for injuries caused in an attack by a dog owned by the landlord's tenants where there was no evidence that the landlord had any actual knowledge of prior attacks by the dog or otherwise knew the dog posed a danger. Although the tenants took certain precautions by keeping the dog on a chain and posting "Beware of Dog" signs, this evidence, standing alone, was not sufficient to demonstrate that the landlord had constructive notice that his tenant harbored a dog with dangerous propensities. Curlee v. Johnson , 377 N.C. 97 (2021) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Criminal law—constitutional violation—standard for determining prejudicial error—burden of proof—In a second-degree murder case arising out of an automobile wreck where the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to suppress (which sought to exclude blood test results) but that–in light of defendant's high speed, reckless driving, and prior record–there remained substantial evidence to show malice to support a second-degree murder conviction and, therefore, defendant failed to show prejudicial error in the denial of the motion to suppress, the Court of Appeals erred by applying the wrong legal standard for determining prejudice and by wrongly placing the burden on defendant to show prejudice. Because a federal constitutional error occurred, the State had the burden of proving the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of the correct standard of review. State v. Scott , 377 N.C. 199 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Due process—competency to stand trial—sua sponte competency hearing —In a case involving multiple drug offenses and habitual felon status, the trial court did not err by failing to sua sponte initiate an inquiry into defendant's competence at the time of trial where–although defendant had twice been determined to be incompetent–six months prior to trial the trial court, after interviewing defendant and his counsel and relying on a medical evaluation, determined defendant to be competent to stand trial. Because there was nothing in the record which occurred after that determination or before the end of the trial to raise a substantial doubt about defendant's continued competence, the trial court was entitled to rely on the correctness of the pre-trial competency determination and was not required to conduct an additional competency inquiry. State v. Allen , 377 N.C. 169 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Defenses—voluntary intoxication—jury instructions—In a trial for felony breaking or entering a motor vehicle, misdemeanor larceny, and misdemeanor possession of stolen property, the trial court did not err by denying defendant's request for a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication where, although defendant appeared to be intoxicated and her actions were periodically unusual at the time of her arrest, there was no substantial evidence that she was utterly incapable of forming specific intent. Defendant did not slur her speech, was able to give biographical information, made appropriate responses to a law enforcement officer's questions, was able to walk under her own power and navigate a flight of stairs with her hands cuffed behind her back, and was able to follow directions. State v. Meader , 377 N.C. 157 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Joinder—of defendants—objection—preservation for appellate review—Defendant properly preserved for appellate review his claim that he should not have been tried jointly with another defendant because they had antagonistic defenses, where defendant objected to the joinder before trial, moved to sever during trial, renewed his motion to sever at the close of the State's evidence and at the close of all evidence, and finally moved again to sever after closing arguments. State v. Melvin , 377 N.C. 187 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Misconduct—serving as executor for non-relatives' estates—failure to report substantial extra-judicial income—suspension—The Supreme Court suspended a district court judge from office for one month where he violated Canons 1, 2A, 5D, and 6C of the Code of Judicial Conduct by serving as executor for the estates of two former clients who were not members of his family, collecting substantial fees as a result, and failing to properly report that extra-judicial income. The Court held that the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice and that brought the judicial office into disrepute. In re Brooks , 377 N.C. 146 (2021) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

Foreclosure sale—deficient service—grossly inadequate sale price—good faith purchasers for value—In a case involving a non-judicial foreclosure based on a claim of lien for unpaid homeowners association fees (in the amount of $204.75), the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that two purchasers were not entitled to good faith purchaser for value status or protections allowed by N.C.G.S. § 1-108, because the initial purchaser paid a grossly inadequate price ($2,650.22 for a house that was sold to the second purchaser for $150,000) and there was evidence showing that both purchasers, who had a history of dealing in foreclosed properties with each other, had reason to be on notice that the homeowners had not received adequate notice of the foreclosure proceeding. The matter was remanded for the trial court to consider whether an award of restitution pursuant to section 1-108 would be appropriate. In re Foreclosure of George , 377 N.C. 129 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Best interests of the child—incarcerated father—release imminent—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of respondent-father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children where respondent's only challenge to the determination was to emphasize that he was scheduled to be released from incarceration shortly after the completion of the termination hearing and had a strong desire to maintain his parental relationship with the children. In re G.B. , 377 N.C. 106 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Best interests of the child—standard of review—abuse of discretion analysis—The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the standard of review for a best interest determination in a termination of parental rights proceeding is abuse of discretion, and upheld the trial court's conclusion, which was supported by specific findings that addressed the factors in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a), that termination of respondent-mother's parental rights was in the best interests of her children. In re G.B. , 377 N.C. 106 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Grounds for termination—willful failure to make reasonable progress—incarceration—The trial court properly terminated respondent-father's parental rights to his children on the basis that he willfully failed to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal where the findings, supported by evidence, demonstrated that respondent, who was incarcerated throughout the pendency of the case, repeatedly made voluntary choices which delayed his release date, limited his options, and hindered his ability to comply with different aspects of his case plan. In re G.B. , 377 N.C. 106 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)