State v. Campbell
Decision Date | 06 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. COA 13-1404-3,COA 13-1404-3 |
Citation | 810 S.E.2d 803,257 N.C.App. 739 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Craig CAMPBELL, Defendant. |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Allison A. Angell and Assistant Attorney General Teresa M. Postell, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Jason Christopher Yoder, Assistant Appellate Defender Barbara S. Blackmon, and Assistant Appellate Defender Hannah Hall Love, for defendant-appellant.
This is now the third time this appeal has been considered by this Court. To briefly recap, defendant Thomas Craig Campbell ("defendant") appealed from a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of breaking or entering a place of religious worship with intent to commit a larceny therein and larceny after breaking or entering. Defendant raised six issues in his appeal, arguing that (1) the indictment for larceny was fatally defective because it failed to allege that Manna Baptist Church was an entity capable of owning property; (2) insufficient evidence supports his conviction for breaking or entering a place of religious worship with intent to commit a larceny therein; (3) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, because his counsel failed to object to the admission of evidence that defendant had committed a separate breaking or entering offense; (4) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the larceny charge due to a fatal variance as to the ownership of the property; (5) insufficient evidence supports his larceny conviction; and (6) the trial court violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict regarding the larceny charge.
Issues (1) and (2) were addressed in our first opinion and the Supreme Court's reversal of that decision on discretionary review. State v. Campbell , 234 N.C.App. 551, 759 S.E.2d 380 (2014) (" Campbell COA I "), rev'd and , 368 N.C. 83, 772 S.E.2d 440 (2015) (" Campbell SC I "). On remand, in our second unanimous opinion, this Court disagreed with defendant on Issue (3) but agreed with defendant on Issue (4). State v. Campbell , 243 N.C.App. 563, 777 S.E.2d 525 (2015) (" Campbell COA II "), review allowed in part , 368 N.C. 904, 794 S.E.2d 800 (2016) ( ), and rev'd and remanded , 369 N.C. 599, 799 S.E.2d 600 (2017) (" Campbell SC II "). On discretionary review, the Supreme Court once again remanded the matter to this Court, not on any substantive grounds but rather "for an independent assessment of whether that court need and should invoke its discretion under Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure in order to reach the merits of one of defendant's substantive issues on appeal." Campbell SC II , 369 N.C. 599, 799 S.E.2d at 601.
In this opinion, as the Supreme Court directed, we reiterate why we have once again chosen to invoke our discretion under Rule 2 to address defendant's arguments regarding Issue (4). In invoking our discretion under Rule 2 to reach the merits of defendant's arguments regarding Issue (4), we hold that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the larceny charge due to a fatal variance between the indictment and evidence regarding ownership of the missing property. We also address Issues (5) and (6) in the interest of judicial economy.
Because the Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court on procedural grounds and no additional factual background is needed, we directly quote the underlying facts as stated in our prior opinions:
Campbell COA II , 243 N.C.App. 563, 777 S.E.2d at 527-28 ( ).
We first note that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Woods
...N.C. 103, 104, 40 S.E.2d 699, 700 (1946) (citation omitted).Particularly pertinent to the case in controversy, in State v. Campbell , 257 N.C. App. 739, 810 S.E.2d 803 (2018), aff'd as modified , 373 N.C. 216, 835 S.E.2d 844 (2019), our Court held that an indictment charging the defendant w......
- State v. Hooper
-
State v. Redmond
...when it was stolen [or damaged]." State v. Carr , 21 N.C. App. 470, 472, 204 S.E.2d 892, 894 (1974) ; see State v. Campbell , 257 N.C. App. 739, 761, 810 S.E.2d 803, 817 (2018), aff'd as modified , 373 N.C. 216, 835 S.E.2d 844 (2019) (exploring cases of joint possession, parental responsibi......
-
State v. Campbell
...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......