State v. Eastman
| Decision Date | 18 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 9210SC1210,9210SC1210 |
| Citation | 113 N.C.App. 347,438 S.E.2d 460 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 88 Ed. Law Rep. 428 STATE of North Carolina v. Stonie Maynor EASTMAN, Defendant. |
Atty. Gen. Michael F. Easley by Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen. Grayson G. Kelley, Raleigh, for the State.
John T. Hall and L. Michael Dodd, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant in the instant case argues three issues on appeal. In his second and third assignments of error, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motions for appropriate relief to set aside the jury's verdict on the convictions of failure to discharge duties and obstruction of justice. We agree with these contentions and accordingly reverse the decision of the trial court and vacate the judgment against the defendant.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for appropriate relief, pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 15A-1411(a). A motion for appropriate relief allows "[r]elief from errors committed in the trial division, or other post-trial relief." G.S. § 15A-1411(a) (1988). Such a motion must be made in writing unless it is made in open court, before the judge who presided at trial, before the end of the session if made in superior court and within ten days after entry of judgment. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 15A-1420(a)(1) (1988).
The defendant's basic argument is that the State did not and could not show that he was an official of one of the State institutions within the meaning of the statute, since he was only an employee of the State. The argument continues that if he is not within the group of officials included in G.S. § 14-230, he cannot be convicted of that offense. We agree and therefore reverse the decision of the trial court.
N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-230 states in pertinent part that:
If any clerk of any court of record, sheriff, magistrate, county commissioner, county surveyor, coroner, treasurer, or official of any of the State institutions, or of any county, city or town, shall willfully omit, neglect or refuse to discharge any of the duties of his office, for default whereof it is not elsewhere provided that he shall be indicted, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. If it shall be proved that such officer ... willfully and corruptly omitted, neglected or refused to discharge any of the duties of his office, or willfully and corruptly violated his oath of office ... such officer shall be guilty of misbehavior in office, and shall be punished by removal therefrom under the sentence of the court as a part of the punishment for the offense, and shall also be fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.
(Emphasis added.) The essential elements of the crime are that 1) the defendant is an official of a state institution, rather than a state employee, and that 2) he willfully omitted, neglected or refused to discharge the duties of his office.
As a threshold question, we must define whether the position held by the defendant is an office within the meaning of the statute. The North Carolina Supreme Court distinguished state officers from employees in State v. Hord, 264 N.C. 149, 141 S.E.2d 241 (1965). In deciding that a police officer was an official within the meaning of the statute, the Court stated: "To constitute an office, as distinguished from employment, it is essential that the position must have been created by the constitution or statutes of the sovereignty, or that the sovereign power shall have delegated to an inferior body the right to create the position in question." Id. at 155, 141 S.E.2d at 245. "An essential difference between a public office and mere employment is the fact that the duties of the incumbent of an office shall involve the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power." Id. Thus, in the case at bar, the prosecution was required to offer proof that the defendant's employment was created by the constitution, statutory authority, or some delegation of sovereign power, and that the defendant exercised some portion of that sovereign power in the course of his duties.
The testimony at trial indicated that the defendant was the Director of Cottage Life, and was one of the three senior administrators at the school, supervising a number of paid staff and volunteers. Vernon Malone, Superintendent of the Morehead School at the time of the incidents, stated that the defendant was a state employee whose role in He further testified that "[i]f it's something that happened in Cottage Life, then Mr. Eastman would have the responsibility."
However, Mr. Malone also testified that the defendant had no policy making position, although he had been an employee of the State for twenty-five years. His testimony indicated that the defendant was required to go through channels within the school in order to report alleged instances of abuse. Additionally, the school's 1988 policy statement required that "[t]he supervisor shall investigate any incident of alleged or suspected abuse and file a preliminary report with the superintendent within twenty-four (24) hours." (Emphasis in original.) Mr. Malone testified that, "I don't think that he [the defendant] would make the decision as to whether or not it [any alleged abuse] ought to be reported, no. Actually, the reporting or the soliciting of outside investigation would not take place or should not have taken place if the superintendent was not aware of that."
The State failed to show any instance where the defendant could exercise sovereign power at any time in the course of his employment. The State additionally failed to produce any evidence that the defendant's position was created by statute, constitution, or delegation of state authority. The evidence presented showed that the defendant made decisions and "judgment calls" normally made by a senior staff member and that they were subject to review and approval by other personnel and by the superintendent of the school.
State v. Olson, 330 N.C. 557, 564, 411 S.E.2d 592, 595 (1992) (citations omitted). "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. "To be 'substantial,' evidence must be existing and real, not just 'seeming or imaginary.' " Id. at 564, 411 S.E.2d at 595, quoting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.W. v. Johnston Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...must allege conduct that interferes with "an official proceeding [that] is pending or about to be instituted." State v. Eastman, 113 N.C. App. 347, 353, 438 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1994) (quotation omitted); see Broughton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 161 N.C. App. 20, 33, 588 S.E.2d 20, 30 (2003......
-
U.S. v. Fenton, Criminal No. 98-01J.
...or administering the law." 63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officials and Employees § 230 (1996) (emphasis added); accord State v. Eastman, 113 N.C.App. 347, 438 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1994) (director of "cottage life" at state school for blind not a government officer); In re Sundlun, 585 A.2d 1185, 1187 (......
-
State v. Rhome
...the office of magistrate by (2) a magistrate, an official of a state institution rather than a state employee. State v. Eastman, 113 N.C.App. 347, 350, 438 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1994). Further, injury to the public must occur as a consequence of the omission, neglect or refusal. State v. Anderso......
-
Stein v. Asheville City Bd. of Educ.
... ... Because the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim for relief with respect to the Blue Ridge defendants, we reverse the trial court's order granting the Blue Ridge defendants' motion to ... ...