State v. Adams

• Decision Date: 06 September 2022
• Docket Number: COA21-459
• Citation: 877 S.E.2d 721
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Leonard ADAMS, Jr., and Vanessa Pena, Defendants.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

877 S.E.2d 721

STATE of North Carolina

v.Michael Leonard ADAMS, Jr., and Vanessa Pena, Defendants.

No. COA21-459

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 6, 2022

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorneys General Ryan C. Zellar and Deborah M. Greene, for the State.

Michael E. Casterline, Asheville, for defendant Michael Leonard Adams, Jr.

Gilda C. Rodriguez, for defendant Vanessa Pena.

STROUD, Chief Judge.

¶ 1 Defendants appeal from judgments entered upon jury verdicts finding them each guilty of misdemeanor child abuse. Defendant Adams argues the trial court erred (1) by denying his motion to dismiss at the close of all evidence; (2) by denying his motion to reopen voir dire of a juror after that juror expressed a potential bias toward defendants who do not testify on their own behalf; and (3) by ordering him to complete conditions of his probation while this appeal was pending. Defendant Pena presents arguments for (1) and (2) above, but does not challenge the portion of the trial court's judgment ordering her to complete conditions of her probation while this appeal was pending. We find the trial court committed no error as to Defendants’ motions to dismiss or motions to reopen voir dire but did err by ordering Defendant Adams to complete the special conditions of his probation while his appeal was pending. The case is remanded for resentencing as to Defendant Adams only.

I. Background

¶ 2 Defendants were tried on 1 May 2019 in Yadkin County District Court. Both Defendants were found guilty of misdemeanor child abuse. Both appealed to the Superior Court and were tried 15 March 2021.

¶ 3 During the unrecorded jury selection at the Superior Court trial, and after he had been passed upon by the State and by defense counsel for both Defendants, but before the jury was impaneled, one of the jurors, Juror Clark,¹ raised his hand and "indicated that he wanted to say something." The rest of the jurors were dismissed for the evening and Juror Clark was held back to speak to the trial court. Juror Clark told the trial court he could not hear one of the questions, and Defendant Adams's counsel repeated the question:

The one about if they choose not to testify? Yes, sir. If -- the defendants have a choice not to testify in the trial. If they exercise that right and choose not to testify, do you believe that you can give the defendants a fair trial based on their choosing not to testify?

Juror Clark then indicated he thought both Defendants should be required to "answer the questions themselves." The trial court did not reopen voir dire , but examined Juror Clark regarding his opinion on the Defendants’ rights not to testify, and told Juror Clark he "cannot hold that against them if they choose not to testify." After the trial court's questions and instructions, Juror Clark affirmed he understood the Defendants have a right not to testify and that he could follow the law as instructed by the trial court. Counsel for both Defendants made motions to reopen voir dire to question Juror Clark; the trial court heard arguments and then elected to "give it some thought overnight."

¶ 4 The following morning, the trial court heard additional arguments by all parties and brought Juror Clark back into the courtroom for additional examination. After a lengthy instruction, and after Juror Clark again affirmatively responded that he could follow the law as instructed by the trial court, the trial court denied Defendants’ motions to reopen voir dire.

¶ 5 The trial proceeded, and only the State presented evidence. The State's evidence tended to show at approximately 6 p.m. on 21 September 2018 Detective Ryan Preslar with the Yadkinville Police Department was "walking out of the police department to go home" when he heard "screaming and hollering." He "walked out to the parking lot to look, and ... [saw] a man in the back driver's side door" of a vehicle across the street, "behind the driver's seat, half his body [was] in the car and he [was] coming in and out." Detective Preslar testified "[i]t was hard to tell ... if he was hitting somebody or jerking on something." The vehicle was in the Sheriff's Office parking lot, across the street from the Yadkinville Police Department parking lot.

¶ 6 Detective Preslar radioed for help and ran toward the vehicle. As he approached, he noticed "[Defendant] Adams had the child out of the vehicle. He had [his arm] wrapped kind of around [the child's] upper torso and arm and he's pulling in one direction and [Defendant] Pena had [the child] by the bottom half of his body, his legs area and she's pulling in the opposite direction." Detective Preslar testified the Defendants were "violent[ly]" pulling the child in opposite directions, because "[t]hey were both wanting that child." The child was "hollering, crying out[,]" and appeared to be in pain. The "tug of war" continued for approximately 20 to 30 seconds while Detective Preslar approached the vehicle, and "[w]hen [he] [got] within feet of [the Defendants] they let go" of the child. Defendants did not drop the child, but quickly put him down on his feet. At about this time Deputy Nathaniel Hodges from the Yadkin County Sheriff's Office arrived and the Defendants were separated. Detective Preslar did not notice injuries on either Defendant or on the child, and the child calmed down significantly after Detective Preslar separated the Defendants. Detective Preslar noticed that the car seat in the car "was actually pulled from its strapped-in position, and it was kind of set to the side."

¶ 7 Deputy Hodges interviewed the Defendants. Defendant Adams stated "he just wanted his child, that he was there to pick up their child ... for a child custody exchange." Defendant Adams also told Deputy Hodges he was supposed to have someone with him to supervise the child custody exchange, but he still attended the custody exchange after his mother, the usual supervisor, could not attend. Defendant Pena stated she was putting shoes on the child when "[Defendant] Adams approached the vehicle and began trying to, in her words, rip the child out of the vehicle." Defendant Pena held on to the child and the "tug of war" ensued "due to the fact she did not want [Defendant] Adams to take the child" because he was "irate." Deputy Hodges charged both Defendants with child abuse under North Carolina General Statute § 14A-318.2 and arrested both Defendants. After Defendants were arrested, DSS was contacted and took temporary custody of the child.

¶ 8 At the close of State's evidence, both Defendants made motions to dismiss. These motions were renewed at the close of all evidence. The motions were denied, and the charges were submitted to the jury. The jury returned a guilty verdict for each Defendant, and the trial court proceeded to sentencing. Both Defendants were sentenced to serve 75 days of imprisonment, suspended for 18 months of supervised probation. As one of the special conditions of probation, each Defendant was ordered to "enroll and complete any coparenting classes." In the written judgments, the trial court noted each Defendant had entered notice of appeal in open court but ordered as to each Defendant that "probation is to commence once the appeal decision is reached but the Defendant is to enroll [and] complete the co-parenting classes while the appeal is pending." (Capitalization altered.) Both Defendants appeal.

II. Analysis

¶ 9 Defendant Adams contends (1) the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him because the child suffered no injury and no substantial risk of injury was created by his conduct; (2) "the trial court abused its discretion when it denied [his] motion to reopen voir dire of Juror [Clark]," (capitalization altered), because good reason existed to reopen voir dire ; and (3) the trial court violated North Carolina General Statute § 15A-1451(a)(4) when it ordered him to serve conditions of his probation while his appeal was pending. Defendant Pena presents substantially the same arguments for the first two issues. Defendant Adams alone asserts the trial court erred by ordering him to complete the conditions of his probation during the pendency of his appeal. Defendant Pena proposed this issue for review but did not address this error in her brief and it has been abandoned. See N.C. R. App. P. 28(a) ("Issues not presented and discussed in a party's brief are deemed abandoned."). We will address each Defendant's argument regarding denial of the motions to dismiss separately. We will address their arguments regarding denial of the motion to reopen voir dire together, and we will address Defendant Adams's argument regarding the special condition of his probation last.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

1. Standard of Review

¶ 10 This Court's standard of review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss is well-settled:

A trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007). On appeal, this Court must determine "whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant's being the perpetrator[.]" State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 890, 121 S. Ct. 213, 148 L.Ed.2d 150 (2000).

Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78–79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980). Evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State with every reasonable inference drawn in the State's favor. State v. Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 223 (1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1135, 115 S. Ct. 2565, 132 L.Ed.2d 818 (1995). "Contradictions and discrepancies are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal." Smith, 300 N.C. at 78, 265 S.E.2d at 169.

State v. Watkins , 247 N.C. App. 391, 394, 785...