In this Iredell County case, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals majority decision affirming defendant’s conviction for failure to comply with the sex offender registry.

Defendant is a registered sex offender, and in June 2019 he registered as a homeless in Iredell County. Because of the county’s requirements for homeless offenders, he had to appear every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to sign a check-in log at the sheriff’s office. On June 21, 2019, defendant moved into a friend’s apartment, but the apartment was under eviction notice and defendant vacated this apartment sometime on the morning of June 26, 2019. Defendant reported all of this information at the sheriff’s office and signed a form showing his change of address on June 21; however, due to the way the form was set up, there was way to indicate defendant planned to vacate on June 26. Instead, defendant signed the homeless check-in log. A sheriff’s deputy went through and attempted to verify this address, unaware that defendant had since vacated; compounding the confusion, the deputy went to the incorrect address, but did not attempt to contact defendant by phone. As a result, the deputy requested a warrant for defendant’s arrest, defendant was indicted, and went to trial for failure to comply with the registry requirements. At trial defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that there was no evidence of intent to deceive, but the trial court denied the motion.

Examining the appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with defendant that the record did not contain sufficient evidence of defendant’s intent to deceive. The court examined each piece of evidence identified by the Court of Appeals majority, and explained that none of the evidence, even in the light most favorable to the state, supported denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Instead, the court noted the record did not show any clear intent, and that the state’s theory of why defendant would be attempting to deceive the sheriff’s office (because he couldn’t say he was homeless) made no sense, as defendant willfully provided his old address and signed the homeless check-in log at the sheriff’s office. Slip Op. at 16.

Justice Barringer, joined by Chief Justice Newby and Justice Berger, dissented and would have held that sufficient evidence in the record supported the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 18.