Category: Uncategorized

Oftentimes in an effort to encourage a guilty plea, the prosecutor will reduce a criminal charge to a less serious offense. In the recent case of State of North Carolina v. Bryant COA 19-175 (Oct 2019), the court ruled that the District Court had no jurisdiction when the District Attorney amended a Larceny charge to the less serious offense of Shoplifting and the defendant entered a plea to the Shoplifting.

In Bryant, the District Attorney struck a line through the Larceny charge and wrote “Shoplifting,” initialed and dated this alteration. The court ruled that this amendment was improper because it changed the nature of the offense charged; Larceny and Shoplifting are separate statutory offenses requiring proof of different elements. Larceny, a Class 1 misdemeanor, requires the intent to steal at the time of the taking. Shoplifting, a Class 3 misdemeanor, has no intent requirement; it is the willful concealment without authority of the merchandise of the store.

The law states that the prosecutor may amend a citation, warrant or other charging document anytime unless the amendment changes the nature of the offense charged. If the charge is to be changed to a different offense, the prosecutor must file a Misdemeanor Statement of Charges.1 (NCGS 15A-922)

Here, since the Shoplifting amendment changed the nature of the offense, a Misdemeanor Statement of Charges was required and the lack of this charging document rendered the amendment improper and the court was without jurisdiction when it accepted the plea.

If you have a conviction for a charge which was the product of an amendment, ascertain if it was the same offense or a different one. Larceny reduced to Attempted Larceny is an example of the same offense but Larceny reduced to Shoplifting or Trespass would be a different offense. If the amendment was the product of an interlineation and no Misdemeanor Statement of Charges was filed, a Motion for Appropriate Relief based upon lack of jurisdiction is well-taken.

1. A Misdemeanor Statement of Charges is a criminal pleading charging a misdemeanor, signed by a prosecutor which supersedes all previous pleading. This form of amending the pleading permits the charging of offenses of the same or different class. G.S. 15A-922(d).

In the pending Texas case, Amber Guyger entered the darkened apartment of Botham Jean, shot and killed him. She claimed that she erroneously believed the apartment to be hers and believed that Mr. Jean was a burglar. As an off-duty police officer, her firearm was easily accessible. Since the apartment was dark, she could only perceive Mr. Jean as a silhouette. After shouting commands and without turning on the lights, she fired her weapon and killed Mr. Jean. Only after shooting him, did she turn on lights thereby ascertaining that she was not in her apartment after all. The authorities filed the lesser crime of manslaughter. What would have happened in North Carolina?
ISSUE #1: Is this murder or manslaughter? The undisputed facts show only that the lawful occupant, Mr. Jean was shot by Ms. Guyger. The only way a manslaughter charge could have been filed in the Texas case is if the affirmative defense of Imperfect Self-Defense was accepted whole-heartedly by the Texas authorities. Imperfect Self-Defense occurs when the defendant believed it is necessary to kill her adversary in order to save herself from death or great bodily harm. In addition, defendant’s belief must be reasonable in that the circumstances as they appeared to her at the time were sufficient to create such a belief in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness. (State v. Ross (1994) 338 N.C. 280, 283, 449 S.E.2d 556, 559–60.)
Whether Ms. Guyger’s belief was reasonable is quite debatable and should be put before the trier of fact. If Ms. Guyger would have turned on the lights, she would have realized immediately that she was the interloper. Is it reasonable for her to shoot into the dark apartment when her safety had not been threatened? At trial, it would be Ms. Guyger’s obligation to prove the affirmative defense and the jury would decide whether she has sustained that burden or not. The self-defense case is not so ironclad that it negates the probable cause to believe that a second-degree murder was committed. The proper charge under North Carolina law would be second-degree murder and not the lesser charge of manslaughter.
ISSUE #2: Does Ms. Guyger have a good affirmative defense? Under North Carolina law, would Guyger’s mistake of fact constitute a complete or partial affirmative defense? Short answer: no. In North Carolina, she would properly face a second-degree murder charge and should be convicted of the same. Amber Guyger was the aggressor, did not have a lawful right to be in Mr. Jean’s apartment and did not act reasonably.
Under North Carolina law, a person can use deadly force if the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend herself against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force or if that person is in their own home. (NCGS § 14-51.2, NCGS § 14-51.3)
According to her version, Mr. Jean’s silent presence would not be sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that any force was imminent and despite her confusion, Ms. Guyger was not in her home and did not have a lawful right to be there; only Mr. Jean did. Only Mr. Jean had the right to defend his home against the true intruder, Ms. Guyger, and any force he could have used would have been lawful. (NCGS § 14-51.2.) Under North Carolina law, only Mr. Jean was a lawful resident of the apartment and could use deadly force.

Footnotes:
1. As an off-duty police officer acting in the capacity of a private person, her actions should be judged as any other civilian.
2. The lawful occupant of a home is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself if both of the following apply: (1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home and (2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall be rebuttable and does not apply in any of the following circumstances: (1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home. (NCGS§ 14-51.2. (b)(c))

In an effort to keep pace with the posting of sexual or private images, videos and live stream on social media, the North Carolina Revenge Porn statute, G.S. 14‑190.5A, has been significantly modified. The Revenge Porn law is the mechanism by which public disclosure of intimate images is criminally punished. Previously the law required that a “personal relationship” exist between the defendant and the subject of the image but no longer. All that is required is the publication of intimate content intended for humiliation, coercion, intimidation or financial loss. Violation of the statute is a felony for adults and repeat offender minors and a misdemeanor for those under 18. The crime is complete if the defendant:
(1) posts an image, video or live stream,
(2) of “naked human parts” (genitals, pubic area, anus, woman’s nipple) or sexual, excretory or lewd exhibitionistic activity,
(3) of a person who is identifiable either in the image or by accompanying information,
(4) without that person’s consent or with an expectation that the image would remain private and
(5) disclosure is intended to harass, intimidate, embarrass or cause financial
loss to the depicted person.
Under this modification, the defendant does not even have to know the victim and the victim doesn’t have to be aware of the taking of the image(s). Photographing a person with a telephoto lens when they were unclothed or engaging in a sexual act would qualify if performed with the required intent.
I can foresee First Amendment challenges to some of the wording used: “normal or perverted” and “clad in revealing or bizarre costume.” Additionally, the legislature expressly mentioned that the scenario wherein an identifiable person’s head was superimposed onto another body was not within the scope of this law but would be “studied” and may be the the subject of the next modification.

Theft from a retail store or from one’s employer is a common charge in criminal court. Sometimes, my client is aware of the motivation for the theft but often the client seems bewildered by his/her own actions. Why do people who have the money to buy a desired object try to steal it anyway? This blog will focus on adults who commit theft and a separate blog will address teen-age theft.

Many people steal because they feel that life has shorted them in some respect and by stealing, they are taking steps to correct this injustice. It is irrelevant that the store where the property was stolen had nothing to do with the deprivation; it is the fact that something of value has been obtained without payment which triggers a feeling of vindication.

Emotional deprivation occurs when feelings of rejection or unmet personal expectations motivate a desire to remedy one’s misfortune. By taking a desired item, he/she is trying to balance life’s injustices with a windfall. “The question they’re asking is, “How can I make up for what I feel has been taken from me?” Stealing offers—at least momentarily—relief, peace, and completion. For a few minutes, they’ve made life fair again.” (Shulman, Something for Nothing: Shoplifting Addiction and Recovery.)

Financial deprivation occurs when the person has less money, assets or material goods currently as compared with a time previously. It could be a paper loss such as a fall in the stock market or it could be a diminution in their standard of living. Alternatively, the person feels that he/she has less money, assets or material goods than friends, peers or celebrities.
Entitlement occurs when a person feels that they deserve more than what they are receiving in the sale transaction. Although similar to deprivation, entitlement occurs in a predominantly affluent person who believes that moral precepts do not apply to him/her.

“It becomes a cat-and-mouse game: What are you going to see me take today? They’d pay for one of the things they were still holding but drop something extra in their shopping bag, like their own version of a free gift,” said a former Sephora employee who detained a woman for hiding cosmetics and skin products behind her baby’s head in an $800 stroller. An Anthropologie employee commented that the thieves were their best paying customers; some upper middle class women buy very expensive clothing and then “accessorize” for free. “We were taught that our prime shoplifters were women and girls who were regular shoppers” said one ex-employee, who every night would find piles of security tags in the fitting rooms which had been removed from apparel that day. “They would spend insane amounts and at the same time steal a few items because they felt that since they had spent so much money, they were entitled to freebies.”

A manager from Macy’s concurred, “It’s often the best customers who steal the most. They’re spending $100,000 a year, but just stole a bag for $5,000,” the ex-staffer said. (Jamieson, Why The Rich Feel Entitled to Shoplift, The New York Post, Aug. 9, 2015)

Instead of motivation preceding action, a theft case can present an example of action preceding motivation. Since impulsive and unexamined acts can result in detrimental consequences, I have to grudgingly admit that my mother’s adage, “Think before you act” is sound advice.

This week in court, a 19 year old facing a felony drug case characterized the criminal allegations and the corresponding suspension from his university as a “bump in the road.” His life had been on hold for six months while the criminal case was pending. He had been kicked out of college and was back living with his family. The tuition and dorm fees secured by parental personal loans had been forfeited. A 28 day residential drug treatment, paid for by his parents and their health insurance had been completed last year but the defendant had continued to smoke marijuana. As the defendant spoke, it was apparent that he alone failed to appreciate the severity of his situation.

To all Millennials: if you find yourself facing a felony charge, here are some tips:

1. This is serious. A felony conviction will bar you from desired education, employment, immigration, licensing and additional significant opportunities. You have gone through life with your parents, teachers etc. minimizing characterizations of harsh situations. All sugar coating aside, it is time to dig deep and comprehend that there are consequences to actions.
2. Once you can appreciate that this is some serious shit, begin to work with your lawyer to formulate a strategy for your defense. The goal is to protect your future even if it means sacrifice in the present. A reduction in charges or a dismissal is worth suffering through jail, community service, rehab or counseling. Be grateful if you get this chance.
3. If you are asked questions by the judge or an attorney, THINK before you answer. A glib or thoughtless comment will reflect really badly and possibly make the judge or the prosecutor withdraw the break that was about to be bestowed upon you. This is referred to this as “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” Don’t let it happen to you.
4. If you are put on probation, given a deferred judgment or conditional discharge, don’t blow it. If you violate the terms of probation, you will go to prison. State prison. Not television prison, not “Orange is the New Black” prison but scary real life prison where you are locked in with dangerous adult criminals. If you are given a conditional discharge or deferral, you have an OPPORTUNITY to earn a dismissal. Fulfill your obligations and don’t pick up any new charges and get that dismissal. Once dismissed, the case can be expunged and you can begin anew with an unmarred future and a lot more wisdom.

North Carolina is one of only two* states who treat 16-17 year olds as adults for criminal law purposes but effective April 15, 2016, a misdemeanor diversion program will ameliorate this inequity. Instead of being arrested or receiving a citation for alleged misdemeanor violations, a “youth citation” will be issued and participation in an in a diversion plan tailored to the needs of the specific teen is required. Successful completion of community service and any recommended counseling or substance abuse rehabilitation will result in the absence of filing of criminal charges. No tangible or computer record of the offense will exist and no mug shot will be taken which could hamper one’s future educational, employment or personal opportunities.
The diversion program is administered by the Criminal Justice Resource Manager and should take approximately 90 days to complete. Only teens with no prior criminal record and with allegations that are not sex-based will qualify for participation.
While we should continue to fight to amend the statute and increase the age for criminal responsibility from 16 to 18 years, Orange County teens can now join Durham County teens in catching a break.

_____________________
* New York is the other state.