Reversing the court of appeals and holding that a temporary restraining order (TRO) entered pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure on a motion alleging acts of domestic violence in an action for divorce from bed and board was not a valid domestic violence protective order as defined by Chapter 50B and was not entered after a hearing by the court or with consent of the parties. Thus, the TRO could not support imposition of the punishment enhancement prescribed by G.S. 50B-4.1(d).

The plaintiff and defendant were in a same-sex dating relationship, and when it ended M.E. sought a domestic violence protective order against T.J. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had engaged in harassment and threatening conduct, and had access to firearms. At a hearing on the requested order, the trial court concluded that it could not enter a 50B protective order because the “allegations are significant but parties are in same sex relationship and have never lived together, therefore do not have relationship required” under the statute. The parties’ relationship fell outside the scope of the statute because “pursuant to the definitions in N.C.G.S. § 50B-1, violence against a person with whom the perpetrator either is, or has been, in a ‘dating relationship’ is not ‘domestic violence,’ no matter how severe the abuse, unless the perpetrator of the violence and the victim of the violence ‘[a]re persons of the opposite sex[.]’ N.C.G.S. § 50B-1(b)(6).” The trial court entered a civil no-contact order pursuant to Chapter 50C instead, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Attorney General’s office and several non-profit groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the petitioner, and neither the defendant nor any other parties filed a brief on defendant’s behalf, so the appellate court appointed an amicus curiae to file a brief in response to the plaintiff’s argument. Noting that the trial court would have held that the allegations supported the entry of a 50B order if not for the fact that petitioner and defendant were the same sex, the plaintiff argued that “the trial court’s denial of her request for a DVPO violated constitutional rights protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the associated provisions of the North Carolina Constitution.” The plaintiff made an as-applied constitutional challenge, but the appellate court observed that its ruling would apply to any other similarly situated applicants. Noting the “ambiguity surrounding the appropriate test to apply in LGBTQ+ based Fourteenth Amendment cases” in the wake of recent cases including Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), the Court of Appeals reviewed plaintiff’s claim under several alternative levels of review, but ultimately held that “no matter the review applied, N.C.G.S. § 50B-1(b)(6) does not survive Plaintiff’s due process and equal protection challenges under either the North Carolina Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.” 

First, the appellate court applied the traditional scrutiny framework (rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny) to evaluate the plaintiff’s due process and equal protection claims under the state constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Pursuant to Obergefell and other precedent, “any member of the LGBTQ+ community has the same rights and freedoms to make personal decisions about dating, intimacy, and marriage as any non-LGBTQ+ individual.” A statute impinging on those liberties on the basis of sex or gender must pass a higher level of scrutiny (“at least” intermediate). Since excluding the plaintiff from the protections of the statute served no legitimate government interest, and was in fact contrary to the broader statutory purpose of protecting all victims of domestic violence, “N.C.G.S. § 50B-1(b)(6) is unconstitutional as-applied to Plaintiff and those similarly situated” under the state constitution, and “cannot survive even the lowest level of scrutiny.” Turning to the Fourteenth Amendment, the court likewise held that the statute did not pass constitutional muster. Plaintiff’s rights and interests were “were identical in every way to those of any other woman in an ‘opposite sex’ relationship” yet she and others similarly situated “are intentionally denied, by the State, the same protections against the domestic violence that may occur after a ‘break-up’” based solely upon sex or membership in a particular class. The court held that the opposite-sex requirement in G.S. 50B-1(b)(6) failed the higher scrutiny test because it was an arbitrary distinction that bore no reasonable or just relation to the classification of protected individuals. The court again noted that the statute would not pass even the lower level of rational basis scrutiny, since there was no cognizable government interest that such a restriction would serve.

Next, reviewing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that culminated in Obergefell, the appellate court found that the cases have “labored to determine the correct standards to apply in the face of government action that had a discriminatory effect on members of the LGBTQ+ community,” resulting in an alternative approach described as a “full Fourteenth Amendment review” that “does not readily fit within the ‘rational basis,’ ‘intermediate scrutiny,’ or ‘strict scrutiny’ triad.” This hybrid approach involves three considerations: (1) the government’s clear intent in passing the law; (2) the impact of majority opposition becoming law and policy, and the consequence it has on those whose liberty is denied; and (3) the particular harms inflicted on same-sex individuals, couples, or families. More specifically, courts must view laws that deny rights to LGBTQ+ individuals as initially suspect, and consider factors such as the state’s actual intent in passing the law, the particular harms suffered by affected individuals, the long history of disapproval of LGBTQ+ relationships, and the injury caused by state action which singles out and stigmatizes those individuals. Those factors are then weighed against any legitimate interest advanced by the law, considering the particular facts and context. Applying those factors and relevant precedent to the present case, the court held that “N.C.G.S. § 50B-1(b)(6) does not survive this balancing test” given the plain language of the statute denying protections to similarly situated people based on sex or gender.

The majority opinion closed by addressing issues related to its appointment of amicus curiae to brief a response to the plaintiff’s appeal. Due to public interest and the potential impact of the decision, as well as the fact that no brief was filed by or on behalf of the defendant, the court appointed an amicus curiae to “defend the ruling of the trial court” and provide the court with the benefit of an opposing view on the constitutionality of the statute. However, the court clarified that an appointed amicus curiae has a limited role under the appellate rules, and does not have the same standing as the original party. As a result, the additional arguments raised by the amicus on behalf of the defendant challenging the court’s jurisdiction and seeking to amend the record on appeal were dismissed as a nullity.

The trial court’s order denying the plaintiff a 50B protective order was reversed and remanded for entry of an appropriate order. The trial court was instructed to apply G.S. 50B-1(b)(6) as stating: “Are persons who are in a dating relationship or have been in a dating relationship.” The court’s ruling applies to any other similarly situated person who seeks a 50B protective order, and the same-sex or opposite-sex nature of the relationship shall not be a factor in the decision to grant or deny the order.

Judge Tyson dissented, and would have held that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter based on the plaintiff’s dismissal of the original 50B complaint, as well as her failure to argue and preserve the constitutional issues, join necessary parties, and comply with other procedural and appellate rules.

The trial court erred by entering judgment and sentencing the defendant on both three counts of habitual violation of a DVPO and one count of interfering with a witness based on the same conduct (sending three letters to the victim asking her not to show up for his court date). The DVPO statute states that “[u]nless covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment,” punishment for the offense at issue was a Class H felony. Here, the conduct was covered under a provision of law providing greater punishment, interfering with a witness, which is a Class G felony.

(1) The trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury on the crime of stalking under the new stalking statute, G.S. 14-277.3A, when the charged course of conduct occurred both before and after enactment of the new statute. The new version of the stalking statute lessened the burden on the State. The court noted that where, as here, a defendant is indicted for a continuing conduct offense that began prior to a statutory modification that disadvantages the defendant and the indictment tracks the new statute’s disadvantageous language, the question of whether the violation extended beyond the effective date of the statute is one that must be resolved by the jury through a special verdict. Here, the trial court’s failure to give such a special verdict was plain error. (2) The evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant knowingly violated a DVPO. The DVPO required the defendant to “stay away from” victim Smith’s place of work, without identifying her workplace. The victim worked at various salons, including one at North Hills. The defendant was charged with violating the DVPO when he was seen in the North Hills Mall parking lot on a day that the victim was working at the North Hills salon. The court concluded that it need not determine the precise contours of what it means to “stay away” because it is clear that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant failed to “stay away” from the victim’s place of work, and no evidence that defendant knowingly did so. It reasoned:

The indictment alleges defendant was “outside” Ms. Smith’s workplace, and although technically the area “outside” of Ms. Smith’s workplace could include any place in the world outside the walls of the salon, obviously such an interpretation is absurd. Certainly the order must mean that defendant could not be so close to Ms. Smith’s workplace that he would be able to observe her, speak to her, or intimidate her in any way, but we cannot define the exact parameters of the term “stay away.” It is clear only that defendant was not seen in an area that could reasonably be described as “outside” of Ms. Smith’s salon, nor was there evidence that he was in a location that would permit him to harass, communicate with, follow, or even observe Ms. Smith at her salon, which might reasonably constitute a failure to “stay away” from her place of work. There was also no evidence that he was in proximity to Ms. Smith’s vehicle or that he was in a location which might be along the path she would take from the salon to her vehicle.

Additionally, there was no evidence that defendant was aware that Ms. Smith worked at the North Hills salon, or that he otherwise knew that he was supposed to stay away from North Hills. The order did not identify North Hills as one of the locations that defendant was supposed to stay away from. The order specified no distance that defendant was supposed to keep between himself and Ms. Smith or her workplace. Defendant was seen walking in the parking structure of a public mall at some unknown distance from the salon where Ms. Smith was working on the night in question.

The trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury on the crime of stalking under the new stalking statute, G.S. 14-277.3A, when the charged course of conduct occurred both before and after enactment of the new statute. The new version of the stalking statute lessened the burden on the State. The court noted that where, as here, a defendant is indicted for a continuing conduct offense that began prior to a statutory modification that disadvantages the defendant and the indictment tracks the new statute’s disadvantageous language, the question of whether the violation extended beyond the effective date of the statute is one that must be resolved by the jury through a special verdict. Here, the trial court’s failure to give such a special verdict was plain error.

In a prosecution under the prior version of the stalking statute, there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence showed communications to persons other than the alleged victim on all but one occasion, concluding that all of the communications were directed to the victim. The defendant harassed the victim by written communications, pager, and phone with no legitimate purpose. The communications were directed to the victim, including those to his office staff, made with the request that they be conveyed to the victim. The harassment placed the victim in fear as evidenced by his testimony, his actions in having his staff make sure the office doors were locked and ensuring the outside lights were working along with encouraging them to walk in “twos” to their cars, his wife’s testimony of his demeanor during and after his phone call with the defendant, his late night phone call to a police officer, his action in taking out a restraining order, and his visit to his children’s school to speak with teachers and counselors and to have them removed from the school’s website. The victim’s fears were reasonable given the defendant’s odd behavior exhibiting a pattern of escalation.

In this Surry County juvenile case, a petition was filed alleging that the juvenile committed extortion by obtaining a digital image of a victim, without her knowledge or consent, in which she was in only her bra and underwear. The petition also alleged that the juvenile used the image to obtain food from the school cafeteria while threatening to expose the image if the victim refused to buy the food or do what the juvenile asked of her. The petition did not name the victim. The juvenile was adjudicated delinquent and the court entered a Level 1 disposition. On appeal the juvenile asserted that (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petition was fatally defective in that it failed to name the victim, (2) the juvenile’s motion to dismiss should have been granted because the crime of extortion requires threat of unlawful physical violence and the juvenile did not make such a threat, (3) there was a fatal variance between the threat alleged in the petition and the proof at the adjudication hearing, (4) the written findings in the adjudication order were insufficient, and (5) the disposition order was insufficient in its failure to contain findings of fact to demonstrate that the court considered all the required factors in G.S. 7B-2501(c).

(1) The Court of Appeals concluded that there was no fatal defect in the petition. Juvenile petitions are generally held to the same standards as criminal indictments in that they must aver every element of the offense with sufficient specificity to clearly apprises the juvenile of the conduct being charged. Like an indictment, a fatally deficient petition fails to evoke the jurisdiction of the court. Central to the offense of extortion is the wrongfulness of the method by which the juvenile seeks to obtain something of value. Slip op. at ¶ 23. A charging instrument charging extortion need only aver the material elements of the offense, which are 1) that a wrongful demand was made with 2) the intent to demand something of value. Slip op. at ¶ 24. The petition in this case sufficiently alleged each of these elements. It was not necessary to specifically name the victim.

(2) The Court also assumed, without holding, that G.S. 14-118.4 is an anti-threat statute, the court holds that First Amendment jurisprudence does not limit the application of this statute to threats of unlawful physical violence. Slip op. at ¶ 31. The definition of a true threat, as provided in State v. Taylor, 379 N.C. 589, 2021-NCSC-164, does not require that a threat includes unlawful physical violence. There is no constitutional rule that threats are protected speech unless they threaten unlawful physical violence. Slip op. at ¶ 34. The State was not required to prove that the juvenile threatened unlawful physical violence.

(3) Next, the Court concluded that there was no fatal variance between the petition and the evidence. The essential element of extortion is that the juvenile used a wrongful threat to obtain something of value. The precise identification of what that thing of value was is not material, as long as the State proves that the juvenile obtained or attempted to obtain something of value. Slip op. at ¶ 40. The specific language in the petition alleging that the juvenile sought to obtain food from the cafeteria was unnecessarily specific and therefore surplusage. The fact that the evidence showed that the juvenile asked the victim to do his homework and the petition alleged that he asked her to obtain food from the cafeteria did not create a fatal variance.

(4) Next, the Court concluded that there were insufficient written findings in the adjudication order. G.S. 7B-2411 requires that, at a minimum, the court state in a written adjudication order that the allegations in the petition have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Language on the pre-printed form used, stating that “The following facts have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt: . . ,”  followed by a finding that states, “[a]t the hearing before the judge, the juvenile was found to be responsible for extortion in violation of 14-118.4,” is insufficient to satisfy this statutory requirement. Only a conclusory statement that the juvenile was responsible for the offense is insufficient. The trial court must affirmatively state the burden of proof in its written findings without regard to the pre-printed language on the form. The case is remanded for the court to make the necessary written findings in the adjudication order. The dispositional order also incorporated the predisposition report and the juvenile’s risk and needs assessment by reference. There were no written findings related to the factors the court is required to consider under G.S. 7B-2501(c) when ordering a disposition. The order is therefore insufficient. Because the adjudication order is vacated, this disposition order is also vacated. However, the insufficiency of the disposition order provides an independent ground for vacating the disposition order. On remand, the trial court may hold a new dispositional hearing to hear additional evidence needed to appropriately consider the factors required by G.S. 7B-2501(c).

In this Iredell County case, the juvenile, “Sophie,” was adjudicated delinquent for communicating a threat of mass violence on educational property in violation of G.S. 14-277.6 after making a statement, in the presence of four classmates, that she was going to blow up the school. She was also adjudicated delinquent for communicating a threat to harm a fellow student in violation of G.S. 14-277.1 after stating that she was going to kill him with a crowbar and bury him in a shallow grave. Sophie argued that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the allegations of the charged offenses.

(1) Proof of a “true threat” is required for an anti-threat statute. The true threat analysis involves both how a reasonable hearer would objectively construe the statement and how the perpetrator subjectively intended the statement to be construed. While there is a split in cases regarding what the State must prove regarding the perpetrator’s subjective intent, this case is resolved because the State did not meet its burden of showing that a reasonable hearer would have construed Sophie’s statement as a true threat. The three classmates who heard the threat and testified at the adjudication hearing did not think she was serious when she made the threat. Sophie had made outlandish threats before and never carried them out. Most of the classmates believed that Sophie was joking when she made the statement. There is not enough evidence to support an inference that it would be objectively reasonable for the hearers to think Sophie was serious in this threat. The adjudication is reversed with respect to the offense of communicating a threat of mass violence on educational property.

(2) The evidence provided regarding the threat to the classmate was sufficient. That evidence, when analyzed in the light most favorable to the State, established that the statement was made so that the classmate could hear it, the classmate took the threat seriously, and it would be reasonable for a person in the classmate’s position to take the threat seriously because the classmate was smaller than Sophie and had previously been physically threatened by her. The Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication of communicating a threat to harm a fellow student and remanded the case to allow the trial court to reconsider the disposition in light of the reversal of the adjudication of communicating a threat of mass violence on educational property.