State v. Harper

• Decision Date: 20 September 2022
• Docket Number: COA21-752
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Ronald Preston HARPER
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

877 S.E.2d 771

STATE of North Carolina

v.Ronald Preston HARPER

No. COA21-752

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 20, 2022

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Juliane L. Bradshaw, for the State.

Hynson Law, PLLC, by Warren D. Hynson, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

TYSON, Judge.

¶ 1 Ronald Preston Harper ("Defendant") appeals from judgment entered upon a jury's verdict finding him guilty of willingly resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer. We find no error.

I. Background

¶ 2 Winterville Police Officers Jordan Cruse ("Officer Cruse") and Jordan Fuquay ("Officer Fuquay") were dispatched to a Sam's Club gas station in Winterville on 14 September 2019 at approximately 2:40 p.m. The dispatch was in response to a caller reporting an individual "cursing and using profanity towards" the caller.

¶ 3 Prior to the officers’ arrival, Defendant was talking to the caller at the gas station about a "blue line" bumper sticker located on the caller's car and race relations. The Defendant and the caller disagreed over policing practices within the United States. No physical confrontation or altercation occurred between Defendant and the caller.

¶ 4 Upon arrival, Officer Cruse and Officer Fuquay observed the caller seated inside a vehicle parked at a gas pump. Defendant's vehicle was parked behind the caller's vehicle at another gas pump. The officers located the caller, who stated Defendant was bothering him. At that time, Defendant was arguing with the gas station attendant over the gas pump, which was spilling fuel due to the hose being over extended.

¶ 5 Officer Cruse and Officer Fuquay requested to speak with Defendant about the reason for the dispatch call. Defendant refused to speak with the officers, stating he was "attending to his pumping duties." Officer Cruse continued to request Defendant to speak with him, whereby Defendant asked if he was under arrest. Officer Cruse responded, "[n]o, you're not free to leave right now." Defendant added, "So I'm under arrest. What statute in North Carolina are you coming to talk to me about?" Officer Cruse responded to Defendant that he was being detained for "causing a disturbance." Officer Cruse reiterated, "[t]he reason that I am talking to you is because we had a gentleman call, complaining that you were harassing him ... That's all I'm here to talk to you about." Defendant replied, "[w]ell, I'm not talking to you about it."

¶ 6 The exchange continued until Officer Cruse requested Defendant provide identification. Defendant reached into his shirt pocket and produced a card purportedly containing Defendant's name with initials, title, a telephone number, and a quote from City of Houston v. Hill. 482 U.S. 451, 462-63, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 2510, 96 L.Ed.2d 398, 412-13 (1987) ("The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."). Defendant asserted he had previously worked as an "investigative journalist" for twenty years.

¶ 7 Officer Cruse continued to request Defendant's identification several times to complete the investigation and dispatch report. Defendant continued to refuse to produce any identification other than the card. Defendant again tried to hand Officer Cruse the same card, requesting Officer Cruse to read the card because the encounter was "a constitutional issue."

¶ 8 Soon thereafter, Defendant responded to yet another request for identification, stating it was located inside his vehicle. Officer Cruse escorted Defendant over to his vehicle where Defendant grabbed his card holder attached to his cell phone. Defendant again tried to give Officer Cruse the card, stating "I'm not giving you nothing until you take this. Take that!" When Officer Cruse refused, Defendant offered the card to Officer Fuquay.

¶ 9 Officer Cruse handcuffed Defendant and requested Officer Fuquay retrieve Defendant's card, out-of-state driver's license, and cell phone. Defendant's license identified him as "Ronald Preston Harper Jr. from Pennsylvania." Defendant was placed under arrest for obstructing Officer Cruse's investigation by refusing to provide identification and charged with resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer.

¶ 10 Officer Cruse was conducting unrelated third-party traffic stops or investigations post-arrest when Defendant appeared at three locations on 22 October 2019 and twice on 17 December 2019. Defendant moved within 10 feet of the stop and recorded Officer Cruse. Defendant next appeared at a stop Officer Cruse was conducting on 17 December 2019. He came near the officer and stated, "I am watching you Jordan, you A--hole." During the second stop on 17 December 2019, Defendant drove by and gestured with a hand motion resembling a gun pointed at Officer Cruse. Officer Cruse charged Defendant with communicating threats. The two charges were joined and tried together. Defendant was convicted by a jury of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer but was acquitted of communicating threats. Defendant appeals.

II. Jurisdiction

¶ 11 Jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b)(1), 15A-1444(a) (2021).

III. Issues

¶ 12 Defendant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing Defendant to waive counsel and represent himself in superior court after Defendant had signed a waiver of counsel in district court; and, (3) whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on justification or excuse for the charge of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer.

IV. Motion to Dismiss

¶ 13 At the close of the State's evidence, Defendant moved to dismiss the obstructing a public officer charge. Following the defense's evidence, the trial court renewed sua sponte Defendant's motion to dismiss and the motion. The issue is preserved for review by this Court. N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(3).

A. Standard of Review

¶ 14 Where a defendant properly preserves a motion to dismiss, this Court reviews the denial of a motion to dismiss de novo. State v. Parker , 274 N.C. App. 464, 469, 852 S.E.2d 638, 644 (2020) (citation omitted). Under de novo review, this Court "considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment" for that of the trial court. In re Appeal of The Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P'ship , 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003) (citation omitted).

B. Analysis

¶ 15 In ruling on a motion to dismiss criminal charges, the question is "whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged ... and (2) of defendant's being the perpetrator of such offense." State v. Barnes , 334 N.C. 67, 75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (1993) (citation omitted).

¶ 16 Whether the State presented substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense is a question of law this Court reviews de novo. State v. Golder , 374 N.C. 238, 250, 839 S.E.2d 782, 790 (2020) (citation omitted). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, this Court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the State and draws all reasonable inferences in the State's favor. Id.

¶ 17 The elements of the offense of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer are: (1) "the victim was a public officer"; (2) "the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the [officer] was a public officer"; (3) "the [officer] was [lawfully] discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office"; (4) "the defendant resisted, delayed, or obstructed the [officer] in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office"; and, (5) "the defendant acted willfully and unlawfully, that is intentionally and without justification or excuse." State v. Peters , 255 N.C. App. 382, 387, 804 S.E.2d 811, 815 (2017) (explaining the essential elements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223 (2021) ).

¶ 18 Defendant does not challenge the first two elements on appeal. Officer Cruse was a public officer in uniform responding to a dispatched call in a marked vehicle, identified himself, announced the reason for his presence on the scene, and requested Defendant to identify himself. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223 (2021).

1. Lawful Discharge of Duties

¶ 19 Defendant first asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer because the initial contact with Defendant was not a lawful discharge of the officer's duties. To succeed in a motion to dismiss, substantial evidence must tend to show Officer Cruse was either not discharging or attempting to discharge his duties or was doing so unlawfully. This element "presupposes lawful conduct of the officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office." State v. Sinclair , 191 N.C. App. 485, 489, 663 S.E.2d 866, 870 (2008).

¶ 20 "The Fourth Amendment protects individuals ‘against unreasonable searches and seizures,’ [under] U.S. Const. amend. IV, and the North Carolina Constitution provides similar protection, [under] N.C. Const. art. I, § 20." State v. Styles , 362 N.C. 412, 414, 665 S.E.2d 438, 439 (2008). Our Supreme Court has stated that "the police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,’ even if the officer lacks probable cause." Id. at 423-24, 665 S.E.2d at 445.

¶ 21 Reasonable suspicion requires "[t]he stop must be based on specific and articulable facts, as well as the rational inferences from those facts, as viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, cautious officer, guided by his experience and training." State v. Watkins , 337 N.C. 437, 441-42, 446 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1994) (citations omitted). "Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard...