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 Durham County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree kidnapping, three counts of assault, and interfering with emergency communications, arguing (1) he was prejudiced by not receiving a pretrial release hearing under G.S. 15A-534.1, (2) double jeopardy for his multiple assault convictions, (3) his conviction for assault by strangulation was improper, and (4) insufficient evidence to support his kidnapping conviction. The Court of Appeals found no prejudicial error.

In January of 2020, defendant and a woman he was living with began arguing, culminating in defendant headbutting the woman several times. Eventually defendant began beating the woman and dragged her by her hair, then throwing her and choking her in the bedroom. The woman eventually hid her child in a closet and jumped out of a window on the third-floor to escape defendant. The woman’s mother attempted to intervene but defendant struck her in the mouth, busting the mother’s lip. Defendant also took the mother’s phone and threw it away, but she retrieved it to call police. After defendant was arrested, the magistrate did not set bond on his kidnapping charge, determining it to be a domestic violence act, and ordered the State to produce defendant for a hearing on conditions of pretrial release. The State did not comply with this order, and defendant remained in custody, not posing bond on any of the charges. After remaining in custody from March to September of 2020, defendant filed a motion to dismiss his kidnapping charge, arguing G.S. 15A-534.1 required dismissal. Defendant’s charges were consolidated the next day with pretrial release conditions and a bond of $250,000; defendant did not post bond and remained in custody. The trial court also denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant reached trial in November 2021, and was convicted after a bench trial, receiving credit for time served. 

Considering (1), the Court of Appeals noted that the State admitted it did not hold the pretrial release hearing but explained the failure as inadvertent due to the onset of COVID-19. Analyzing the impact, the court explained “[t]he inadvertence does not excuse the State; rather, it is relevant to show the absence of a flagrant constitutional violation.” Slip Op. at 11. The court also noted defendant did not post bond after his initial arrest, and “even if the State had held a timely pretrial release hearing on the kidnapping charge, Defendant would not have been released.” Id. at 11. As a result, defendant could not show irreparable prejudice to the preparation of his case. 

Next the court considered (2), as defendant argued the events constituted one long assault. The court disagreed, explaining there was an “interruption in the momentum” and “a change in location” between the events of the three assaults. Id. at 14-15. The court held each offense was separate and distinct, and found no merit in defendant’s argument. The court applied the same analysis for (3), pointing to “a distinct interruption in the assaults” to justify defendant’s convictions for assault inflicting serious bodily injury as well as assault by strangulation. Id. at 16. 

Finally, the court took up (4), noting that defendant’s acts of confining and removing the victim represented separate and distinct acts from the underlying assaults, justifying the kidnapping charge. The court explained that “Defendant’s confinement of [the victim] by pulling her by the hair back into the bedroom, confining her in there by kicking at the locked door, and forcing her to escape by jumping from the third floor window, were separate, complete acts apart from Defendant’s other assaults upon her.” Id. at 19. 

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 erred by sentencing the defendant for both assault inflicting serious bodily injury under G.S. 14-32.4(a) and assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury under G.S. 14-32(b), when both charges arose from the same assault. The court reasoned that G.S. 14-32(b) prohibits punishment of any person convicted under its provisions if “the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment.” Here, the defendant’s conduct pertaining to his charge for and conviction of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury was covered by the provisions of G.S. 14-32(b), which permits a greater punishment than that provided for in G.S. 14-32.4(a).

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.