Whether sufficient evidence existed to raise a jury question with regard to the larceny charge against defendant.

Termination of parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) (2017); whether the district court should have appointed respondent-mother a guardian ad litem; whether the district court's findings of fact supported its conclusion that respondent-father's parental rights were subject to termination; whether a statement by the district court reflected bias.

Appeal from orders terminating respondents' parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) (2017); whether the district court's findings of fact supported its conclusion of law that respondent-mother's parental rights should be terminated; no-merit review of respondent-father's appeal pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(e).

Termination of parental rights; whether the district court received sufficient evidence and made adequate findings of fact to support a termination of respondent's parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) (2017); whether the district court abused its discretion by concluding that termination was in one of the child's best interest.

Appeal from sentence imposed for sexual offenses with a child after the trial court failed to conduct a charge conference before instructing the jury concerning an aggravating factor that the jury then found to exist; whether the Court of Appeals erred in vacating defendant's sentence and remanding for a new jury trial to determine the existence of the aggravating factor; validity of indictment for sexual offense against a child.

Whether the conduct in this case was related to the rendering of professional services such that plaintiff is exempt from UDTP liability by the learned profession exception.

Boundary dispute; whether the trial court erred in granting judgment for defendant in an action to quiet title and in determining the location of the boundary line at issue.

Appeal from trial court's denial of motion to dismiss charge of trafficking in cocaine based on insufficiency of the evidence; whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that defendant preserved the issue of whether there was insufficient evidence that defendant actually possessed cocaine and that the State failed to present substantial evidence of each element of the crime.

Appeal from convictions for murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury; whether the trial court erred in allowing two eyewitnesses to make in-court identifications of defendant as the shooter; whether the Court of Appeals majority correctly found that the trial court violated defendant's right to due process, that the error was prejudicial, and that defendant should receive a new trial.