In this case involving convictions for first-degree kidnapping and misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon, among other offenses, the State presented sufficient evidence of the offenses and the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss on that basis.  With regard to the kidnapping conviction, the defendant argued that the State failed to present substantial evidence the defendant’s purpose was to terrorize the victim.  Recounting evidence that the defendant hid in the backseat of the victim’s car holding a knife while he waited for her to get off work, forced her to remain in the car and drive by choking her and threatening her with the knife, and forcefully struck her on the head when she attempted to scream for help, the court rejected this argument and bolstered its position by describing her frantic efforts to escape. 

The court also found sufficient evidence of misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon under both the show of violence theory of assault and the act or attempt to do injury to another theory of assault.  The State’s evidence tended to show that after two men scuffled with the defendant in an attempt to aid the victim, the defendant jumped into the driver’s seat of the victim’s car and attempted to run the men over and nearly did so.  This was sufficient evidence of assault under either theory.

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of assault by strangulation on the same victim. The defendant argued that because his obstruction of the victim’s airway was caused by the defendant’s hand over the victim’s nose and mouth, rather than “external pressure” applied to the neck, it was “smothering” not “strangling”. Rejecting this argument, the court concluded:

We do not believe that the statute requires a particular method of restricting the airways in the throat. Here, defendant constricted [the victim’s] airways by grabbing him under the chin, pulling his head back, covering his nose and mouth, and hyperextending his neck. Although there was no evidence that defendant restricted [the victim’s] breathing by direct application of force to the trachea, he managed to accomplish the same effect by hyperextending [the victim’s] neck and throat. The fact that defendant restricted [the victim’s] airway through the application of force to the top of his neck and to his head rather than the trachea itself is immaterial.

A defendant may not be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon under G.S. 14-32 and assault on a child under G.S. 14-33 based on the same incident. G.S. 14-33 states that a defendant shall be guilty of assault on a child unless another statue provides harsher punishment for the same conduct. Here, because the defendant was convicted and sentenced for assault with a deadly weapon for his assault on the same victim and since this conviction carries a harsher punishment than assault on a child, the conviction and sentence for assault on a child must be vacated.

There was sufficient evidence that a lawn chair was a deadly weapon for purposes of assault. The victim was knocked unconscious and suffered multiple facial fractures and injuries which required surgery; after surgery his jaw was wired shut for weeks and he missed 2-3 weeks of work; and at trial the victim testified that he still suffered from vision problems. Because the State presented evidence that the defendant assaulted the victim with the lawn chair and not his fists alone, it was not required to present evidence as to the parties’ size or condition.

The trial court did not err by instructing the jury that a pickaxe was a deadly weapon. The pickaxe handle was about 3 feet long, and the pickaxe weighed 9-10 pounds. The defendant swung the pickaxe approximately 8 times, causing cuts to the victim’s head that required 53 staples. She also slashed his middle finger, leaving it hanging only by a piece of skin.

The evidence was sufficient to establish that the knife used in the assault was a deadly weapon where a witness testified that the knife was three inches long and the victim sustained significant injuries.

The vehicle at issue was not a deadly weapon as a matter of law where there was no evidence that the vehicle was moving at a high speed and given the victim’s lack of significant injury and the lack of damage to the other vehicle involved, a jury could conclude that the vehicle was not aimed directly at the victim and that the impact was more of a glancing contact.

The evidence was sufficient to show an assault with intent to kill an officer when, after having fatally shot eight people, the defendant ignored the officer’s instructions to drop his shotgun and continued to reload it. The defendant then turned toward the officer, lowered the shotgun, and fired one shot at the officer at the same time that the officer fired at the defendant.

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of assault with deadly weapon with intent to kill, over the defendant’s argument that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to kill. This charge was based on the defendant’s use of a bat to assault his wife. The court determined that the nature and manner of the attack supported a reasonable inference that the defendant intended to kill, including that he hit her even after she fell to her knees, he repeatedly struck her head with the bat until she lost consciousness, she never fought back, and the wounds could have been fatal. Also, the circumstances of the attack, including the parties’ conduct, provided additional evidence of intent to kill, including that the two had a volatile relationship and the victim had recently filed for divorce.

In an assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury case, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that three gunshot wounds to the leg constituted serious injury. The victim was shot three times, was hospitalized for two days, had surgery to remove a bone fragment from his leg, and experienced pain from the injuries up through the time of trial. From this evidence, the court concluded, it is unlikely that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the victim’s injuries were serious.

The trial court did not commit plain error by peremptorily instructing the jury that multiple gunshot wounds to the upper body would constitute serious injury. The victim required emergency surgery, was left with scars on his chest, shoulder, back and neck, and a bullet remained in his neck, causing him continuing pain.

In an assault inflicting serious bodily injury case involving the defendant’s assault on a transgender woman, A.R., the evidence was sufficient to establish that serious bodily injury occurred. A.R.’s injury required stitches, pain medication, time off from work, and modified duties once she resumed work. Her pain lasted for as much as six months, and her doctor described it as “significantly painful.” This evidence tends to show a “permanent or protracted condition that causes extreme pain.” Moreover, the assault left A.R. with a significant, jagged scar, which would support a finding of “serious permanent disfigurement.”

(1) The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of assault on a law enforcement officer inflicting serious bodily injury. The defendant asserted that he only used the amount of force reasonably necessary to resist an unlawful arrest. In the case, the officer responded to a 911 call reporting a suspicious person who refused to leave a public housing complex. The person was described as a male in his 30s wearing all black and near or around an older model, a black truck. The police department had an agency agreement with the complex giving officers the authority to remove trespassers from the property. Upon arrival the officer saw the male defendant wearing all black clothing and standing in front of an older model, black truck with a beer can in his hand. When the two spoke, the officer could smell a strong odor of alcohol emitting from the defendant. After further interaction, the officer explained to the defendant that he was trespassing. In part because of his impairment, the officer asked the defendant how he was going to get home. The defendant gave no clear answer. The officer informed the defendant that he was being “trespassed” and although not under arrest he would be taken for a “detox.” The officer attempted to handcuff the defendant in accordance with department policy to handcuff people transported by the police. When the officer reached for his handcuff pouch, the defendant became aggressive and used foul language, tensed up and tried to pull away from the officer. Trying to get control of the defendant, the officer pushed the defendant towards his vehicle. The officer informed the defendant that he was under arrest for resisting delaying and obstructing an officer. The defendant tried to turn around, raising his fist as if to “throw a punch.” The officer pointed his Taser at the defendant giving commands and advising him that he was under arrest. The defendant fled and the officer pursued. When the defendant fell to the ground on his back, the officer commanded him to roll over and put his hands behind his back. The defendant refused to comply and raised his feet and hands towards the officer “taking a combat stance.” The officer fired his Taser. However, the defendant was able to remove one of the Taser leads and took flight again. After the officer tackled the defendant, a struggle ensued. Backup arrived and assisted in securing the defendant. The officer sustained injuries from the struggle. There was sufficient evidence of the first element of the offense, an assault on the officer. Specifically, the officer testified that the defendant hit and bit him. There also was sufficient evidence with respect to serious bodily injury. Specifically, the officer testified that the bites caused extreme pain, skin removal, permanent scarring, and hospitalization. Photographs of the injuries were shown to the jury, as were the officer’s scars. The evidence also was sufficient to establish the third element, that the victim was a law enforcement officer performing his official duties at the time of the assault. The evidence showed that the officer was attempting to discharge his official duties as a routine patrol officer by responding to a report about a trespasser, conducting investigative work and acting on the results of his investigation. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to know that the victim was a law enforcement officer. Here, the officer arrived in a marked patrol vehicle, was in uniform and told the defendant that he was a law enforcement officer.

(2) The trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the right to resist an unlawful arrest. Here, an arrest occurred when under G.S. 122C-303, the officer attempted, against the defendant’s will, to take the publicly intoxicated defendant to jail to assist him. However, probable cause to arrest the defendant for second-degree trespass existed at this time. It does not matter that the officer did not arrest the defendant for that offense. The arrest was lawful because there was probable cause that the defendant had committed the trespass offense in the officer’s presence. Throughout the officer’s investigation, the defendant remained at the complex without authorization, even after he had been notified not to enter or remain there by the officer, a person authorized to so notify him. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that second-degree trespass does not create probable cause to arrest because that offense is a misdemeanor.

(3) The trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the right to defend oneself from excessive force by a law enforcement officer where the evidence did not show that the officer’s use of force was excessive.

(1) The evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant inflicted serious bodily injury on the victim. The beating left the victim with broken bones in her face, a broken hand, a cracked knee, and an eye so beat up and swollen that she could not see properly out of it at the time of trial. The victim testified that her hand and eye “hurt all of the time.” (2) The defendant could not be convicted and sentenced for both assault inflicting serious bodily injury and assault on a female when the convictions were based on the same conduct. The court concluded that language in the assault on a female statute (“[u]nless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment . . . .”) reflects a legislative intent to limit a trial court’s authority to impose punishment for assault on a female when punishment is also imposed for higher class offenses that apply to the same conduct (here, assault inflicting serious bodily injury).

In this discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle while in operation case, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence.  Evidence at trial tended to show that the defendant fired a pistol at the victim’s truck and struck a toolbox fastened into the truck’s bed.  The court rejected the defendant’s argument that G.S. 14-34.1(b) requires at a minimum that the bullet strike the exterior wall of the vehicle.  Analogizing to State v. Miles, 223 N.C. App. 160 (2012), where it had determined that there was sufficient evidence of the version of the offense involving an occupied dwelling where a bullet struck a porch attached to a house, the court determined that striking the toolbox of the vehicle was sufficient to meet the firing “into [property]” element of the offense.

After getting into an argument at a holiday party, the defendant fired a warning shot from a rifle into the air and then fired a single shot into a moving vehicle occupied by two people, striking one of them in the neck and seriously injuring him. Defendant was subsequently convicted and sentenced for four felonies related to the shooting, including charges for both: (1) discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle in operation inflicting serious bodily injury, a Class C felony under G.S. 14-34.1(c) (for the injured victim); and (2) discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle in operation, a Class D felony under G.S. 14-34.1(b) (for the second occupant). On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should have arrested judgment on the lesser of the two charges for firing into an occupied vehicle, because he could not be sentenced twice for the single act of firing one shot. The Court of Appeals agreed and held that although the defendant could be indicted and tried for both charges, upon conviction the trial court should have arrested judgment for the lesser offense. This case was distinguishable from other cases in which multiple judgments were supported because the defendant fired multiple shots or fired into multiple vehicles. In this case, where there was only one shot fired into one vehicle, the relevant inquiry under the statute is only whether the vehicle was occupied; the number of occupants is immaterial. To the extent that the presence of additional occupants in the vehicle increases the risk of injury or enhances the culpability of the act, that factor is accounted for by the ascending levels of punishment prescribed under the statute.

(1) The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of discharging a firearm into occupied property. The trial court improperly instructed the jury that it had to find that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the dwelling was occupied; this instruction raised the evidentiary bar for the State, as this offense only requires proof that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that the building might be occupied. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State was bound by the higher standard stated in the jury instruction. Evidence that the shooting occurred in a residential neighborhood in the evening and resident’s car was parked outside of her home sufficiently established that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the dwelling might be occupied. (2) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court’s jury instruction on discharging a firearm into occupied property was an improper disjunctive instruction. The defendant was indicted for firing into the home of Ms. Knox. At trial, all the evidence pertains to Knox’s home. The trial court’s jury instruction referred to discharging a firearm “into a dwelling,” without specifying Knox’s home. The jury instruction was not phrased in the disjunctive nor did it have “the practical effect of disjunctive instruction,” as argued by the defendant.

The evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for discharging a firearm into occupied property (a vehicle), an offense used to support a felony-murder conviction. The defendant argued that the evidence was conflicting as to whether he fired the shots from inside or outside the vehicle. Citing prior case law, the court noted that an individual discharges a firearm “into” an occupied vehicle even if the firearm is inside the vehicle, as long as the individual is outside the vehicle when discharging the weapon. The court continued, noting that mere contradictions in the evidence do not warrant dismissal and that here the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury.

With regard to a felony-murder charge, the evidence was sufficient to show the underlying felony of discharging a firearm into occupied property (here, a vehicle). The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence failed to establish that he was outside of the vehicle when he shot the victim.

In a discharging a firearm into occupied property case, a residence was occupied when the family was on the front porch when the weapon was discharged.

The evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for assault on a government officer under G.S. 14-33(c)(4). While attempting to separate the defendant from other individuals, the defendant spit at people walking behind the officer, hitting the officer with his spit. The defendant argued that because he intended to assault individuals standing behind the officer, the State failed to establish that he intended to assault the officer. The court rejected this argument, holding that the offense was a general intent crime. Here, the defendant conceded that he knew the victim was a law enforcement officer and that he intended to commit an assault. The court concluded: “we are satisfied that when Defendant spat at members of the crowd and [the] Officer . . . was struck by Defendant’s spit, the requirements of [the statute] were satisfied.” It continued: “the knowledge element of assault on a government officer in violation of [G.S. 14-33(c)(4)] is satisfied whenever a defendant while in the course of assaulting another individual instead assaults an individual he knows, or reasonably should know, is a government officer.”

There was sufficient evidence that the defendant committed multiple assaults against his girlfriend and the Court was equally divided as to whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant used his hands, feet, or teeth as deadly weapons.  The Court characterized “the question of how to delineate between assaults—to know where one assault ends and another begins—in order to determine whether the State may charge a defendant with multiple assaults” as an issue of first impression.  Reviewing case law, the Court explained that a single assault “might refer to a single harmful contact or several harmful contacts within a single incident,” depending on the facts.  The Court declined to extend the three-factor analysis of State v. Rambert, 341 N.C. 173 (1995), applicable to discharging a firearm into occupied property, to assault cases generally, saying that the Rambert factors were “not the ideal analogy” because of differences in the nature of the acts of discharging a firearm and throwing a punch or kick.  The Court determined that a defendant may be charged with more than one assault only when there is substantial evidence that a “distinct interruption” occurred between assaults.  Building on Court of Appeals jurisprudence, the Court said: 

[W]e now take the opportunity to provide examples but not an exclusive list to further explain what can qualify as a distinct interruption: a distinct interruption may take the form of an intervening event, a lapse of time in which a reasonable person could calm down, an interruption in the momentum of the attack, a change in location, or some other clear break delineating the end of one assault and the beginning of another.

The Court went on to explain that neither evidence of a victim’s multiple, distinct injuries nor evidence of different methods of attack alone are sufficient to show a “distinct interruption” between assaults. 

Turning to the facts at hand, the Court concluded that evidence showing that the defendant beat the victim for hours inside a trailer and subsequently beat the victim in a car while driving home was sufficient to support multiple charges of assault.  The assaults were separated by an intervening event interrupting the momentum of the attack – cleaning the trailer and packing the car.  The assaults also were distinct in time and location.  Though the defendant was charged with at least two assaults for conduct occurring inside the trailer, the Court concluded that the evidence indicated that there was only a single assault inside the trailer as the attack was continuous and ongoing.

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of habitual misdemeanor assault and felony assault inflicting serious bodily injury for the same assaultive act. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by sentencing him for both habitual misdemeanor assault and the felony assault. The Court of Appeals vacated the habitual misdemeanor assault conviction, holding over a dissent that the defendant could not be sentenced for both crimes when the offenses arose from the same act. State v. Fields, ___ N.C. App. ___, 827 S.E.2d 120 (2019). The State appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina based on the dissent, and also sought discretionary review on the issue of whether, even if it was impermissible for the trial judge to sentence the defendant for both convictions, the Court of Appeals erred by vacating one of the convictions instead of arresting judgment on it. (1) On the first issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, concluding that the defendant could not be sentenced for both convictions that arose out of the same assaultive act. The misdemeanor assault statute, G.S. 14-33, includes prefatory language saying the law applies “[u]nless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment”—language the appellate courts have generally interpreted to bar simultaneous punishments for the same act. Though the habitual misdemeanor assault statute, G.S. 14-33.2, does not include that language, the Supreme Court concluded that the principle still applies, as the misdemeanor assault is necessarily a part of the “upgraded” habitual misdemeanor assault conviction. The felony assault conviction based on the same assaultive act was a “provision of law providing greater punishment” that invoked the prefatory language of the misdemeanor assault statute, which in turn meant that the defendant could not be punished for habitual misdemeanor assault. (2) On the second issue, the Court concluded that the proper remedy when such prefatory language bars double punishment for the same act is to arrest judgment on one of the judgments, not to vacate it.

In this Rutherford County case, defendant appealed his convictions for various assault charges, first-degree kidnapping, obstructing justice, and violations of a domestic violence order, arguing (1) error in denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) failure to intervene ex mero motu during the State’s opening statement and closing argument, and (4) error in admitting Rule 404(b) evidence. The Court of Appeals found no error and dismissed defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim without prejudice.  

In January of 2021, defendant and his girlfriend smoked methamphetamine together, and defendant became paranoid that his girlfriend was wearing a wire. He began ripping off her clothes, and eventually used a Sawzall to cut off her hoodie. Defendant also struck her in the head with a flashlight, causing bleeding. Defendant eventually dragged her into the bathroom and put her in the shower, but also struck her again with the showerhead and punched her. Defendant then dragged her into the living room and choked her until she passed out. After coming to trial, defendant was convicted of the charges and admitted to attaining habitual felon status. 

Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals noted that defendant presented the evidence in the light most favorable to him, not to the State, but the court conducted a review of the evidence under the proper standard regardless. The court walked through each charge on pages 6-12 of the Slip Opinion, including a discussion of the specific elements of each charge. The court spent significant time distinguishing between each assault charge with a distinct interruption between the assaults. Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no error in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Moving to (2), defendant’s argument was predicated defense counsel conceding his guilt during closing argument. The court found the record was not developed adequately to address this claim, dismissing it without prejudice. Reaching (3), defendant argued the State “deliberately appeal[ed] to the jurors’ sense of passion and prejudice” in its opening statement and closing argument. Slip Op. at 14. The court did not share this interpretation, noting “[w]hile the State argued passionately, it was within the bounds of decorum and propriety.” Id.

Finally, in (4) the court considered the admission of evidence under Rule of Evidence 404(b), specifically testimony about defendant’s previous abusive behavior towards his girlfriend during 2020. The court explained “[b]ecause Defendant’s conduct was admissible as proof of motive, intent, manner, and common scheme, [the witness’s] testimony was relevant for a purpose other than showing Defendant’s propensity for violence.” Id. at 18. The trial court also “carefully deliberated and made a well-reasoned decision” when admitting the evidence, showing no issue with admission under Rule of Evidence 403. Id.

In this Forsyth County case, defendant appealed her conviction for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, arguing error in (1) instructing the jury that the knife was a deadly weapon per se, and (2) declining to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor assault inflicting serious injury. The Court of Appeals found no error. 

At a Father’s Day cookout in 2021, defendant and the victim, a woman who was serving macaroni and cheese, began to argue. Over the course of the day, the two had several confrontations about whether defendant was entitled to be served any of the macaroni and cheese. The confrontations led to a fight, where defendant slashed the victim several times with a small pocketknife, causing injuries to her face, arms, and torso. At trial, defense counsel requested that the jury be instructed on lesser included offenses and that the knife did not constitute a per se deadly weapon, but the trial court overruled this request and did not instruct on lesser included offenses. 

Reviewing (1), the Court of Appeals noted that the knife in question was not admitted into evidence at trial. Defendant argued that without the knife in evidence and without testimony of its character and appearance, it was improper to instruct the jury that it was a deadly weapon. The court disagreed, explaining “although the State bears the burden of proving, inter alia, the use of a deadly weapon, the State is not required to producethe alleged weapon to obtain a conviction for an assault involving a deadly weapon.” Slip Op. at 12. The court also disagreed with defendant about the evidence of the knife, as body-cam footage of defendant describing the knife was in the record, as well as evidence of the injuries sustained by the victim. After determining the trial court properly instructed the jury that the knife was a deadly weapon, the court concluded that (2) was also properly decided, explaining that the State’s evidence supported every element of the crime charged and “there was no conflicting evidence relating to any element of the charged crime.” Id. at 15 (cleaned up). 

The trial court did not err by sentencing the defendant for both of assault on a female and assault by strangulation. Prefatory language in G.S. 14-33(c) provides that “Unless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment,” assault on a female is punished as a Class A1 misdemeanor. Here, the defendant was also punished for the higher class offense of assault by strangulation. The prefatory clause of G.S. 14-33(c) only applies when both assaults are based on the same conduct. Here, the assaults were based on different conduct. The defendant’s act of pinning down the victim and choking her to stop her from screaming supported the assault by strangulation conviction. His acts of grabbing her hair, tossing her down a rocky embankment, and punching her face and head multiple times supported the assault on a female conviction. The two assaults were sufficiently separate and distinct. First, they required different thought processes. The defendant’s decision to grab the victim’s hair, throw her down the embankment and repeatedly punch her required a separate thought process from his decision to pin her down and strangle her to quiet her screaming. Second the assaults were distinct in time. After the defendant’s initial physical assault and then the strangulation, he briefly ceased his assault when she stopped screaming and resisting. But when she resumed screaming and he again hit her in the head multiple times. Third, the victim sustained injuries to different parts of her body.

The trial court erred by imposing sentences for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury and assault inflicting serious bodily injury based on the same incident. The statute proscribing the lesser of the two offenses, a Class F felony, includes the following prefatory language: “Unless the conduct is covered under some provision of law providing greater punishment.” Here, the defendant was also convicted of the more serious assault, a Class C felony. Thus multiple punishment is precluded.

The trial court did not err by convicting the defendant of both robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault with a deadly weapon where each conviction arose from discrete conduct.

The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant for both habitual misdemeanor assault and assault on a female where both convictions arose out of the same assault. The statute provides that “unless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment,” an assault on a female is a Class A1 misdemeanor. Here, the conduct was covered under another provision of law providing greater punishment, habitual misdemeanor assault, a Class H felony.

(1) A defendant may be convicted of assault by strangulation and assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury where two incidents occurred. The fact that these assaults were part of a pattern of chronic child abuse does not mean that they are considered one assault. (2) The State sufficiently proved two distinct incidents of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury supporting two convictions and three instances of felony child abuse supporting three such convictions. The fact that the assaults form part of chronic and continual abuse did not alter its conclusion.

No double jeopardy violation occurred when the defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury based on the same events. Each offense includes an element not included in the other.