Is My Testimony Enough to Get a DVPO in North Carolina? | The Law Corner | Raleigh, NC
Precedent Case: Jay v. Jay, 912 S.E.2d 873 (N.C. App., March 5, 2025).
Sufficiency of evidence to support findings of fact; incorporation of unverified statement of allegations Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings of fact that the defendant committed acts of domestic violence. The trial court did not err by attaching plaintiff’s unverified statement of events to the DVPO where there was sufficient evidence during the trial in addition to the written statement of plaintiff to support the trial court’s findings of fact. Dissent argued that the trial court’s findings of fact were insufficient to support the conclusion that the defendant committed acts of domestic violence. According to the dissent, the incorporation of plaintiff’s unverified statement into the DVPO “was an improper delegation of the trial court’s fact-finding duty.”. 17 Jay v. Jay, 912 S.E.2d 873 (N.C. App., March 5, 2025). The trial court entered a one-year DVPO after concluding the defendant committed acts of domestic violence against plaintiff. The DVPO contained findings on the printed DVPO form order that defendant committed acts in all three categories of domestic violence: intentionally causing bodily injury, placing plaintiff in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, and second-degree rape. The trial court also attached to the DVPO plaintiff’s unverified statement of events that were the acts of domestic violence. The defendant argued on appeal that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the findings of fact in the DVPO. The court of appeals disagreed, holding that the evidence introduced during the trial that included testimony by both parties about the events at issue was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings of fact. Even if the unverified statement was stricken from the record, the majority held there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of fact in the DVPO. The dissent argued that the findings of fact were insufficient and that the trial court should not have relied on the attached statement as the detailed findings necessary to support the DVPO.




