Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
State v. Montgomery, COA24-291, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May. 21, 2025)
In this Forsyth County case, defendant appealed his conviction for felonious operation of a motor vehicle to elude arrest, arguing error in (1) denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence and (2) providing a confusing jury instruction. The Court of Appeals found no error.
In August of 2020, defendant drove his truck into a closed lane where construction workers were paving a highway. An officer was present doing lane control, and he attempted to stop defendant; at first, defendant slowed to a stop, but then began driving away as the officer ran to keep up with him. Defendant eventually ran over the officer’s foot and hit the officer with the front fender of his truck as he reversed out of the area. Construction workers took a picture of defendant’s license plate, allowing law enforcement to locate and charge him with eluding arrest. At trial, defendant stipulated that his license was revoked, meaning the State only had to prove one aggravating factor, that defendant was driving recklessly, to elevate the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony.
Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals disagreed with defendant that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he was driving recklessly to support the charge. The court pointed to the series of events after defendant drove into the construction area, as he “drove into a lane closed to regular traffic where multiple construction workers were working on foot and another worker was actively operating a paving machine” and then “drove his truck in reverse in the construction zone, going the wrong direction, increasing his speed as he drove.” Slip Op. at 6. Ultimately defendant struck the officer while backing out of the construction area, showing willful disregard for the safety of everyone present.
Reaching (2), the court explained that the trial court laid out the stipulation and the necessary issue the State had to prove in a statement to the jury, then provided the pattern jury instruction for the charge. After this, the jury asked for clarification between felony and misdemeanor, but the court noted “its inquiry does not render the trial court’s instructions erroneous.” Id. at10. Ultimately the court concluded “[t]aken as a whole, the trial court’s instruction to the jury on felonious operation of a motor vehicle to elude arrest is correct.” Id. at 11.