State v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 06 December 2019
• Docket Number: No. 252PA14-3,252PA14-3
• Citation: 373 N.C. 216,835 S.E.2d 844
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Craig CAMPBELL
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

373 N.C. 216

835 S.E.2d 844

STATE of North Carolina

v.Thomas Craig CAMPBELL

No. 252PA14-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 6, 2019

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Hannah Hall Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

DAVIS, Justice.

In this case, we consider whether the State met its burden of presenting sufficient evidence for the jury to convict defendant of felony larceny. Because we conclude that insufficient evidence existed to support the larceny charge, we modify and affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision vacating his conviction.

Factual and Procedural Background

This case is before us for the third time. The relevant facts were set out in our first opinion in this case as follows:

On 8 October 2013, the Cleveland County Grand Jury indicted defendant for felony breaking or entering a place of worship and felony larceny after breaking or entering. The larceny indictment specifically alleged that, on 15 August 2012, defendant stole "a music receiver, microphones and sounds system wires, the personal property of Andy Stevens and Manna Baptist Church, ... in violation of N.C.G.S. [§] 14–54.1(a)." Defendant pled not guilty.

At trial, the State's evidence showed that at the conclusion of Sunday services on 19 August 2012, Pastor Andy Stevens of Manna Baptist Church discovered that some audio equipment was missing. Pastor Stevens lives on the Manna Baptist Church property. He testified that the church doors may have been inadvertently left unlocked on 15 August, following Wednesday evening services. When the church secretary arrived the next morning, she locked the doors, and they remained locked until Sunday morning. Although there was no sign of forced entry, Pastor Stevens found defendant's wallet in the baptistry changing area at the back of the church close to where some of the missing equipment previously had been located.

A detective testified that she spoke with defendant at the Cleveland County Detention Center, where he was being held on an unrelated charge. When defendant learned the detective wished to speak with him, he said, "[T]his can't possibly be good. What have I done now that I don't remember?" Defendant then admitted to being at Manna Baptist Church the night the doors were left unlocked. He said he was on "a spiritual journey" and "had done some things," but "did not remember what he had done" in the church.

At the close of the State's evidence, the trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charges based on insufficient evidence. Defendant then testified on his own behalf. He stated that on the night in question, he was asked to leave the house in which he was living, so he packed a duffle bag with his clothes and started walking toward a friend's house. Along the way, he dumped the bag in a ditch because it was too heavy to carry. Defendant arrived at his friend's house around midnight. When his friend's girlfriend asked him to leave, he kept walking until he reached Manna Baptist Church. Defendant noticed that the door to the church was cracked open. He was thirsty from walking all night, so he entered the church with the intent to find water and sanctuary. Defendant stated that once inside, he prayed, slept, "tried to do a lot of soul searching," and drank a bottle of water, although he admitted he was "not really sure exactly what [he] did the whole time [he] was" in the church. He also testified that he "did not take anything away from the church" when he left at daybreak.

After leaving the church, defendant felt chest pains, so he called 9-1-1. Defendant testified that he was taking a host of medications at the time, including a psychotropic drug, for his heart condition, stress disorder, bipolar condition, and diabetes

. An Emergency Medical Technician ("E.M.T.") responded to the call around 6:30 a.m. on Thursday. The E.M.T. testified that defendant said he had been "wandering all night," that defendant looked "disheveled" and "worn out," and that defendant's "shoes were actually worn through the soles." The E.M.T. did not see defendant carrying anything.

At the close of evidence, defendant renewed his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, which the trial court again denied. The jury found defendant guilty of

felony larceny and felony breaking or entering a place of religious worship, and defendant appealed.

State v. Campbell , 368 N.C. 83, 84–85, 772 S.E.2d 440, 442–43 (2015) ( Campbell I ) (alterations in original).

Defendant appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals, where he raised six issues. The Court of Appeals addressed only two of his arguments, holding that (1) his indictment for larceny was deficient because it failed to allege that Manna Baptist Church was an entity capable of owning property; and (2) the State had failed to present sufficient evidence of an essential element of felony breaking or entering—intent to commit larceny. State v. Campbell , 234 N.C. App. 551, 555–61, 759 S.E.2d 380, 383–87 (2014).

We allowed the State's petition for discretionary review and proceeded to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision. First, we held that the larceny indictment was, in fact, legally adequate. Campbell I , 368 N.C. at 86–87, 772 S.E.2d at 443–44. Second, we ruled that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to allow the jury to convict defendant of felony breaking or entering a place of religious worship. Id . at 87–88, 772 S.E.2d at 444. Accordingly, we reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case to that court for consideration of the remaining issues defendant had raised with regard to his conviction for larceny. Id. at 88, 772 S.E.2d at 445.

On remand, the Court of Appeals focused its analysis on defendant's argument that a fatal variance existed between the indictment for larceny and the evidence presented by the State. The Court of Appeals first determined that although defendant had not preserved his fatal variance argument at trial due to his failure to move for the dismissal of the larceny charge on that ground, consideration of defendant's fatal variance argument was nevertheless appropriate based upon the invocation of Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.¹ State v. Campbell , 243 N.C. App. 563, 571, 777 S.E.2d 525, 530 (2015).

Having decided to invoke Rule 2, the Court of Appeals then addressed the merits of defendant's argument and determined that a fatal variance did exist because although the indictment alleged two owners of the stolen property (Andy Stevens and Manna Baptist Church), the evidence at trial established that only the church was the owner of the missing items. Id . at 577–78, 777 S.E.2d at 534. For this reason, the Court of Appeals vacated defendant's larceny conviction. Id .

The State once again petitioned this Court for discretionary review, which we allowed. We reversed the Court of Appeals’ second decision and remanded the case back to that court in order for it to "independently and expressly determine whether, on the facts and under the circumstances of this specific case, to exercise its discretion to employ Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure ... and consider the merits of defendant's fatal variance argument." State v. Campbell , 369 N.C. 599, 604, 799 S.E.2d 600, 603 (2017) ( Campbell II ) .

Following our remand, the Court of Appeals issued a third opinion in which it reaffirmed its decision to invoke Rule 2 in order to review the fatal variance claim and concluded once again that a fatal variance existed between the indictment and the evidence at trial. State v. Campbell , 810 S.E.2d 803, 818–20 (N.C. App. 2018). After so holding, the Court of Appeals proceeded—based on principles of judicial economy—to also address the additional issues of whether sufficient evidence existed to support defendant's larceny conviction and whether the trial court violated his right to a unanimous verdict in connection with the larceny charge. Id . at 820. The Court of Appeals determined that the State's evidence was insufficient to raise a jury question on the larceny charge. Id . at 820–23.²

Judge Berger dissented from the majority's rulings. In his dissent, he stated his belief that the majority had erred in invoking Rule 2 under the circumstances of this case. Id . at 823–25 (Berger, J., dissenting). He further expressed his belief that substantial evidence existed to support defendant's larceny conviction and that defendant had not been deprived of his right to a unanimous verdict. Id . at 826–27 (Berger, J., dissenting).

Based on Judge Berger's dissent, the State appealed as of right to this Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2). In addition, we allowed the State's petition for discretionary review as to additional issues pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31.

Analysis

The bulk of the parties’ arguments in this latest appeal concern the questions of whether the Court of Appeals properly invoked Rule 2 in order to reach the fatal variance issue and, in turn, whether a fatal variance actually existed. We believe, however, that we need not resolve either of those issues based on our determination that the Court of Appeals correctly held the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the larceny charge.

When reviewing a defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, a court must inquire "whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the crime and that the defendant is the perpetrator." State v. Call , 349 N.C. 382, 417, 508 S.E.2d 496, 518 (1998). Substantial evidence exists when "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Barnette , 304 N.C. 447, 458, 284 S.E.2d 298, 305 (1981). In other words, substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." State v. Brown , 310...