State v. Rankin
Citation | 257 N.C.App. 354,809 S.E.2d 358 |
Decision Date | 02 January 2018 |
Docket Number | No. COA17-396,COA17-396 |
Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Angela Marie RANKIN |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Amy Bircher, for the State.
Sarah Holladay, for defendant-appellant.
In this appeal, we must determine whether the defendant’s indictment for felony littering of hazardous waste was facially valid. Because we conclude that her indictment failed to contain an essential element of the crime for which she was charged, we vacate her conviction.
The State presented evidence tending to establish the following facts: On 27 April 2014, Angela Marie Rankin ("Defendant") was searching for scrap metal to sell. She noticed a metal tank containing fuel oil near a residential driveway on North Elam Avenue in Greensboro, North Carolina. Upon attempting to move the tank, Defendant realized some amount of "home heating fuel" was contained inside of it. She drained the contents of the tank onto the ground so that the tank "wouldn’t be as heavy."
The metal tank was reported stolen to the City of Greensboro Police Department. The Division of Public Health of the Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services also received a report of "a fuel release that impacted a waterway and soil and roadway inside the Guilford County limits." Upon investigation, it was discovered that the heating oil from the metal tank was the cause of the contamination in the area, and the oil was deemed "a hazardous substance for disposal...."
On 21 July 2014, Defendant was indicted for felony littering of hazardous waste, misdemeanor larceny, and misdemeanor conspiracy to commit larceny. On 5 July 2016, a jury trial was held in Guilford County Superior Court before the Honorable Michael D. Duncan. Defendant moved to dismiss all charges at the close of the evidence, and the trial court dismissed the conspiracy charge.
On 6 July 2016, the jury found Defendant guilty of felony littering of hazardous waste and not guilty of misdemeanor larceny. On 7 July 2016, the trial court sentenced Defendant to 5 to 15 months imprisonment but suspended the sentence and placed her on supervised probation for 18 months. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
As an initial matter, we must determine whether we possess jurisdiction over this appeal. Defendant’s notice of appeal did not explicitly state that she was appealing the trial court’s judgment to this Court as required by Rule 4(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Defendant has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the event we find her notice of appeal was insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court based on her failure to expressly state that her appeal was to this Court as required by Rule 4(b).
Because this Court is the only court possessing jurisdiction to hear her appeal, it can be fairly inferred that Defendant intended to appeal to this Court. See State v. Sitosky , 238 N.C. App. 558, 560, 767 S.E.2d 623, 624-25 (2014), disc. review denied , 368 N.C. 237, 768 S.E.2d 847 (2015) ( ). Moreover, the State has not suggested that it was misled due to this deficiency in her notice of appeal.
Thus, Defendant’s failure to designate this Court in her notice of appeal does not warrant dismissal of this appeal. See State v. Ragland , 226 N.C. App. 547, 553, 739 S.E.2d 616, 620 ( ), disc. review denied , 367 N.C. 220, 747 S.E.2d 548 (2013). Accordingly, we deny Defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari as moot and proceed to consider the merits of her appeal.
Our Supreme Court has made clear that "[a]n indictment must allege all the essential elements of the offense endeavored to be charged...." State v. Spivey , 368 N.C. 739, 742, 782 S.E.2d 872, 874 (2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted). However, an indictment is not required to reference exceptions to the offense. State v. Mather , 221 N.C. App. 593, 598, 728 S.E.2d 430, 434 (2012).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-399(a) states, in pertinent part, as follows:
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-399(a) (2015) (emphasis added).
Defendant’s indictment alleged, in relevant part, the following:
The jurors for the State upon their oath present that on ... the date of offense shown and in the county named above the defendant named above unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did intentionally and recklessly spill and dispose of litter on property not owned by the defendant, the property owned and controlled by the City of Greensboro and not into a litter receptacle as defined in General Statute 14-399(A)(2). The litter discarded was hazardous waste.
The State does not dispute the fact that the indictment failed to allege that Defendant had not discarded litter on property "designated by the State or political subdivision thereof for the disposal of garbage and refuse[ ] and ... [was] authorized to use the property for this purpose" as set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-399(a)(1).1 Thus, the sole issue in this appeal is whether subsection (a)(1) is an essential element under § 14-399(a) or, alternatively, it is merely an exception.
In State v. Connor , 142 N.C. 700, 55 S.E. 787 (1906), our Supreme Court explained the difference between an essential element to an offense (which must be alleged in the indictment) and an exception to the offense (which need not be alleged).
Id. at 701-03, 55 S.E. at 788-89 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Over the past century since Connor was decided, our Supreme Court has consistently held that an indictment must include all the essential elements of the offense charged against the defendant. See, e.g. , State v. Brice , ––– N.C. ––––, ––––, 806 S.E.2d 32, 36 (2017) ) ("To be sufficient under our Constitution, an indictment must allege lucidly and accurately all the essential elements of the offense endeavored to be charged." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); State v. Murrell , ––– N.C. ––––, ––––, 804 S.E.2d 504, 508 (2017) ; State v. Williams , 318 N.C. 624, 631, 350 S.E.2d 353, 357 (1986) (); State v. McBane , 276 N.C. 60, 65, 170 S.E.2d 913, 916 (1969) ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rankin, 23A18
...of felony littering of hazardous waste. The Court of Appeals majority agreed and vacated the conviction. State v. Rankin , –– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 809 S.E.2d 358, 365 (2018). One judge dissented, asserting that the indictment was facially valid because the statutory language omitted from t......
-
JVC Enters., LLC v. City of Concord
...than the legal reasoning relied upon to resolve the case, and thus constitutes nonbinding dicta . See, e.g., State v. Rankin , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 809 S.E.2d 358, 363 ("Our Supreme Court has defined obiter dictum as ‘[l]anguage in an opinion not necessary to the decision.’ " (quoting ......
-
Abc Servs., LLC v. Wheatly Boys, LLC
...case law reveals only two additional cases referencing the definition of "litter receptacle" under North Carolina law: State v. Rankin , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 809 S.E.2d 358 (2018) and State v. Mather , 221 N.C. App. 593, 728 S.E.2d 430 (2012). Each of these cases discusses Hinkle 's de......
- In re J.B.