State v. Rager, COA23-848, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Jun. 18, 2024)

In this Haywood County case, defendant appealed his convictions for making harassing phone calls and being intoxicated and disruptive in public, arguing the superior court lacked jurisdiction to try him for the intoxicated in public charge, and that he did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals agreed, vacating defendant’s conviction for being intoxicated and disruptive in public and granting a new trial for the harassing phone calls charge. 

Beginning in the late evening hours of April 9, 2022, and continuing to the early morning, defendant called the Waynesville Police Department over fifty times to inquire about the investigation into an assault where he was the victim. Dispatchers told defendant that the assigned detective was not on duty, but defendant kept calling, eventually speaking with the sergeant in charge at that hour. After that call, defendant walked up to the police department parking lot and confronted the sergeant, exhibiting clear signs of being intoxicated. Defendant was subsequently arrested, and appeared pro se in district court on the charges. The district court found defendant guilty of making harassing phone calls and not guilty of being intoxicated and disruptive in public, and defendant appealed to superior court. Defendant again appeared pro se before the superior court and was tried in a bench trial, being found guilty of both charges. 

Taking up defendant’s first argument, the Court of Appeals explained that the State conceded the superior court lacked jurisdiction to try him on the intoxicated and disruptive in public charge because he was acquitted at district court. The court explained that there was significant confusion about the charges before the superior court, and “the superior court incorrectly explained to Defendant that he was facing a trial de novo for both charges.” Slip Op. at 6. Because the superior court lacked jurisdiction, the court vacated the conviction for being intoxicated and disruptive in public. 

Moving to the jury trial waiver issue, the court explained that under G.S. 15A-1201(d), the trial court must conduct a colloquy with a defendant before allowing waiver of a jury trial. Here, the court looked to applicable precedent for the substance of that colloquy, and determined there was “no record evidence that the superior court personally addressed Defendant or conducted any colloquy whatsoever to determine whether he fully understood and appreciated the consequences of his decision to waive his right to a jury trial.” Id. at 15. Additionally, defendant was pro se and no evidence in the record showed he was aware of his right to request a jury trial. Having established the failure to comply with the applicable standard, the court also held that the error was prejudicial, as there was a reasonable possibility that at least one juror would have found defendant’s conduct was not a violation. This led the court to grant a new trial on the harassing phone calls charge.