Driving while impaired—probable cause for arrest—de novo review—The unchallenged evidence found by the district and superior courts was sufficient as a matter of law to support defendant's arrest for impaired driving. Defendant admitted that he had consumed three beers before driving; there was a moderate odor of alcohol about him; his eyes were red and glassy; and defendant passed but performed imperfectly on the field sobriety tests. Whether an officer had probable cause to arrest a defendant for impaired driving contains a factual component, and the proper resolution of the issue requires the application of legal principles and constitutes a conclusion of law subject to de novo review. State v. Parisi , 372 N.C. 639 (2019) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Confrontation Clause—cross-examination of State's principal witness—plea negotiations for pending charges—potential bias—The trial court violated the Confrontation Clause in a murder trial by significantly limiting defendant's cross-examination of the State's principal witness concerning plea negotiations for pending charges against her and her possible bias for the State. Because this witness was crucial to the State's case–she was the only witness to provide direct evidence of defendant's presence at the crime scene, and no physical evidence linked defendant to the crime–the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bowman , 372 N.C. 439 (2019) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Double jeopardy—hung journey—dismissal by State—Defendant's second prosecution for second-degree murder violated his Double Jeopardy rights where a first trial ended in a hung jury, the State took a voluntary dismissal, and defendant was retried and convicted after new DNA evidence emerged. Jeopardy continued after the mistrial, and the State could have retried defendant again without violating his double jeopardy rights; however, the State made a binding decision not to retry the case when it made the unilateral choice to enter a final dismissal. That decision was tantamount to an acquittal. State v. Courtney , 372 N.C. 458 (2019) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Surrender of Fifth Amendment right to assert Sixth Amendment right—admission to affidavit of indigency to prove defendant's age—element of charges—In defendant's trial for abduction of a child and statutory rape charges, the trial court erred by allowing defendant's affidavit of indigency to be admitted to prove his age, which was an element of the charges. The trial court's decision impermissibly required defendant to surrender one constitutional right–his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination–to assert another–his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel as an indigent defendant. State v. Diaz , 372 N.C. 493 (2019) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Sufficiency of evidence—all evidence considered—clarification of prior case law—The Supreme Court clarified that its opinion in State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 (2010), involved the issue of admissibility rather than sufficiency of evidence. When considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, it does not matter whether any (even all) of the record evidence should not have been admitted. In other words, all of the evidence–regardless of its admissibility–must be considered when determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction. In addition, the Supreme Court disapproved of the portion of the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion adopted by the Supreme Court in State v. Llamas-Hernandez, 363 N.C. 8 (2009), that suggested that the lack of expert testimony identifying the substance in this case as heroin means that the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. State v. Osborne , 372 N.C. 619 (2019) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Equitable distribution—distributive award—separate property—The trial court erred in an equitable distribution action by making a distributive award of separate property to pay a marital debt where the trial court noted that both parties were in their seventies and might not be able to pay their debts before their deaths. While N.C.G.S. § 50-20(e) neither explicitly allowed or excluded the use of separate property to satisfy a distributive award, the rest of the equitable distribution statute allowed for the distribution only of marital and divisible property. It would be inconsistent to read into this section the authority to use separate property to satisfy a distributive award. Crowell v. Crowell , 372 N.C. 362 (2019) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

Sufficiency of evidence—possession of heroin—all admitted evidence considered—The trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to dismiss a charge of possession of heroin for insufficiency of the evidence where the evidence admitted at trial showed that defendant told an investigating officer that she had ingested heroin, that several investigating officers identified the substance seized in defendant's hotel room as heroin, and that the substance field-tested positive for heroin twice. This and all other record evidence, when considered in its entirety and without regard to the admissibility of any evidence, was sufficient to show that the substance at issue was heroin. State v. Osborne , 372 N.C. 619 (2019) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Erroneously admitted in violation of defendant's constitutional rights—proof of age at trial—victim's opinion testimony—The Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the trial court's erroneous admission of defendant's affidavit of indigency to prove his age in his trial for abduction of a child and statutory rape was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and granting defendant a new trial. The State was not required to prove defendant's exact date of birth; the victim's opinion testimony was competent as to the issue of defendant's age; and other evidence admitted at trial–the testimony of the victim (who had attended high school with defendant and had engaged in an intimate relationship with him for several months) that defendant was born in November 1995–left no reasonable possibility that the jury would have unduly relied on defendant's affidavit of indigency to convict him. State v. Diaz , 372 N.C. 493 (2019) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Delinquency—disorderly conduct—sufficiency of evidence—There was sufficient evidence to withstand a juvenile's motion to dismiss a charge of disorderly conduct where the State presented evidence tending to show that the juvenile threw a chair at his brother across a high school cafeteria where other students were present; the juvenile then ran out of the cafeteria; the juvenile cursed at the school resource officer, who handcuffed him; other students became involved and cursed at the officer; and the officer arrested another student during the confrontation. In re T.T.E. , 372 N.C. 413 (2019) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Delinquency—petition—disorderly conduct—sufficient allegation—Where the delinquency petition charging a juvenile with disorderly conduct substantially tracked the language of the statute, N.C.G.S. § 14-288.4, the juvenile and his parents had sufficient notice of, and the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over, the charged offense. In re T.T.E. , 372 N.C. 413 (2019) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Doctrine of recent possession—possession two weeks after items stolen—The evidence presented of defendant's possession of stolen goods was sufficient to support her convictions for felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny under the doctrine of recent possession. Defendant acknowledged that she had control and possession of the stolen items, in the bed of her pickup truck, on a date two weeks after the items allegedly were stolen. State v. McDaniel , 372 N.C. 594 (2019) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Revocation—after expiration—no finding of good cause—The trial court erred by revoking defendant's probation without a finding that good cause for doing so existed. The trial court's judgment contained no findings referencing the existence of good cause, and the record was devoid of any indication that the trial court was aware that defendant's probationary term had expired when it entered its judgments. The case was remanded for a determination of good cause because the Supreme Court was unable to determine from the record that no evidence existed that would allow a determination of good cause. State v. Morgan , 372 N.C. 609 (2019) (Author: Justice Mark Davis)

Mandatory lifetime SBM monitoring—Fourth Amendment balancing test—bodily integrity and daily movements—North Carolina's satellite-based monitoring (SBM) program, N.C.G.S. § 14-208.40A(c) and 14-208.40B(c), was held unconstitutional as applied to individuals in defendant's category–those who were subject to mandatory lifetime SBM based solely on their statutorily defined status as a "recidivist" who also had completed their prison sentences and were no longer supervised by the State through probation, parole, or post-release supervision. Recidivists, as defined in the SBM statute, did not have a greatly diminished privacy interest in their bodily integrity or their daily movements; the SBM program constituted a substantial intrusion into those privacy interests; the State failed to demonstrate that the SBM program furthered its interest in solving crimes, preventing crimes, or protecting the public. State v. Grady , 372 N.C. 509 (2019) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Probable cause—warrant—probable cause—Probable cause for a warrant to search a vehicle did not exist where the officer had the necessary information but did not include it in the affidavit. Some of that information was contained in an unsworn attachment listing the property to be searched. State v. Lewis , 372 N.C. 576 (2019) (Author: Justice Mark Davis)

Thumb drive—multiple files—one opened—expectation of privacy in remaining files—A detective's search of a thumb drive was not authorized under the private-search doctrine in a prosecution for multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. Defendant's girlfriend found an image of her granddaughter on defendant's thumb drive while looking for something else. She took the thumb drive to the sheriff's department, and a detective, while looking for the image the grandmother had reported, found other images that he believed might be child pornography. He then applied for a search warrant for the thumb drive and other property of defendant. The mere opening of a thumb drive and the viewing of one file does not automatically remove Fourth Amendment protections from the entirety of the contents. Digital storage devices organize information essentially by means of containers within containers. The detective here did not have a virtual certainty that nothing else of significance was in the thumb drive and that its contents would not tell him anything more that he had already been told. State v. Terrell , 372 N.C. 657 (2019) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Warrant—search of residence—probable cause—A search warrant did not establish probable cause to search a residence where it did not connect defendant with the residence and provided no basis for the magistrate to conclude that evidence of the robberies being investigated would likely be found inside the home. State v. Lewis , 372 N.C. 576 (2019) (Author: Justice Mark Davis)

Disposition—not an abuse of discretion—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of respondent's parental rights was in the best interests of two children. The trial court appropriately considered the factors stated in N.C.G.S. § 78-1110(a) when determining their best interests, and the determination that respondent's strong bond with the children was outweighed by other factors was not manifestly unsupported by reason. In re Z.L.W. , 372 N.C. 432 (2019) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Failure to make reasonable progress—direct or indirect factors leading to removal—The Court of Appeals erred by reversing the trial court's order terminating respondent-mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) for failure to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to her daughter's removal from her home. "Conditions of removal," as contemplated by N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2), includes all of the factors that directly or indirectly contributed to causing the juvenile's removal from the parental home. Where an act of domestic violence and the discovery of an unexplained bruise on the daughter's arm led to her removal from her home, respondent-mother's failure to make reasonable progress to comply with her court-ordered case plan–for example, by abusing her Adderall prescription, failing to pass or submit to drug tests, and failing to complete a neuro-psychological examination or participate in therapy–supported the trial court's termination of her parental rights. In re B.O.A. , 372 N.C. 372 (2019) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Neglected juvenile—sufficiency of evidence—The trial court's conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(9) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of respondent's parental rights. Furthermore, the trial court made sufficient findings in determining that termination was in the best interests of the child. In re T.N.H. , 372 N.C. 403 (2019) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

No-merit brief—error by Court of Appeals—review of merits by Supreme Court—goal of resolving case expeditiously—After determining that the Court of Appeals erred in a termination of parental rights case by failing to conduct an independent review of the issues set out in a no-merit brief, the Supreme Court elected to conduct its own review of those issues in the interest of expeditiously resolving the case. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's order was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. In re L.E.M. , 372 N.C. 396 (2019) (Author: Justice Mark Davis)

No-merit brief—independent review of issues by appellate court—The Court of Appeals erred by dismissing respondent-father's appeal from an order terminating his parental rights where respondent's attorney filed a no-merit brief pursuant to N.C. Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.1(d). The Supreme Court concluded that Rule 3.1(d) mandates an independent review on appeal of the issues contained in a no-merit brief, and it overruled the Court of Appeals decision to the contrary in In re L.V., 814 S.E.2d 928 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). In re L.E.M. , 372 N.C. 396 (2019) (Author: Justice Mark Davis)

Willful abandonment—due consideration of dispositional factors—Sufficient evidence existed to support the termination of respondent's parental rights based upon the willful abandonment and willful failure to pay child support. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination would be in the children's best interests. In re E.H.P. , 372 N.C. 388 (2019) (Author: Justice Mark Davis)