State v. Mylett
| Decision Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 6A19,6A19 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PATRICK MYLETT |
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 822 S.E.2d 518 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018), finding no error after appeal from a judgment entered on 2 February 2017 by Judge Marvin P. Pope, Jr. in Superior Court, Watauga County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 8 January 2020.
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Ryan Y. Park, Deputy Solicitor General, for the State-appellee.
Goodman Carr, PLLC, by W. Rob Heroy, for defendant-appellant.
Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, PLLC, by Noell P. Tin; and Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic, UCLA School of Law, by Eugene Volokh, for Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment, amicus curiae.
Defendant, Patrick Mylett, attended the trial of his twin brother who was found guilty of assault on a government official by a jury in Superior Court, Watauga County, on 31 March 2016. Approximately eleven months later, defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit harassment of a juror in the same county because of his actions at the Watauga County Courthouse following his brother's conviction. Because the evidence in defendant's trial was insufficient to raise anything more than mere conjecture that he had made an agreement with another person to threaten or intimidate a juror, it was error for the trial court to deny his motion to dismiss.
On 29 August 2015, defendant and his twin brother, Dan, were involved in an altercation at a fraternity party in Boone, North Carolina, during which Dan was severely beaten, requiring hospitalization. Dan was subsequently charged with assault on a government official for allegedly spitting on a law enforcement officer during the incident. At the end of the trial, at which defendant testified on Dan's behalf, the jury found Dan guilty of the offense on 31 March 2016. After Dan's sentencing, defendant exited the courtroom and was waiting in the lobby of the courthouse as jurors began exiting the courtroom and retrieving their belongings from a nearby jury room1 before departing. During this time, defendant confronted and spoke to multiple jurors about the case. When Dan, Dan's girlfriend (Kathryn), and defendant's mother subsequently exited the courtroom, Dan and Kathryn also spoke to jurors as the jurors were leaving. Video footage of these interactions, without audio, was captured by video cameras in and around the courthouse. When Dan's attorney exited the courtroom approximately two and one-half minutes afterdefendant first left the courtroom, he joined defendant and defendant's group in the lobby and they departed from the courthouse.
On 19 April 2016, defendant was arrested and charged with six counts of harassment of a juror pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-225.2(a)(2), which provides that an individual "is guilty of harassment of a juror if" the individual "[a]s a result of the prior official action of another as a juror in a . . . trial, threatens in any manner or in any place, or intimidates the former juror or his spouse." Defendant was also charged with one count of conspiracy to commit harassment of a juror pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-225.2(a)(2) (2015). The Watauga County grand jury subsequently indicted defendant for these charges.
Defendant filed pretrial motions to dismiss, including a motion arguing that N.C.G.S. § 14-225.2(a)(2) is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and a motion arguing that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The trial court denied defendant's motions.
At trial, six jurors from Dan's trial testified as witnesses for the State. At the close of the State's evidence, defendant renewed his pretrial motions and also moved to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence. The trial court denied these motions. Following the presentation of defendant's evidence, including his own testimony, defendant renewed his motions to dismiss at the close of all evidence. The trial court again denied these motions. At the charge conference, defendant requested that the trial court instruct the jury that in order to find him guilty, the jury must find thathis conduct constituted a true threat or that he intended to intimidate the jurors. The trial court denied the requested instruction.
The jury found defendant not guilty of the six counts of harassment of a juror. However, the jury found defendant guilty of the single offense of conspiracy to commit harassment of a juror. The trial court sentenced defendant to forty-five days in the custody of the sheriff of Watauga County, suspended his active sentence, and placed defendant on eighteen months of supervised probation. Additionally, the trial court ordered defendant, inter alia, to perform fifty hours of community service, successfully complete an anger management course and follow any recommended treatment, and obtain twenty hours of weekly employment. Further, the trial court imposed "a curfew of 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. for a period of four months . . . which can be accomplished by electronic monitoring," requiring defendant to remain at his residence except for employment and school classes during the period of the curfew. Defendant appealed.
At the Court of Appeals, defendant first argued that the trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss on the basis of the constitutionality of N.C.G.S. § 14-225.2(a)(2). State v. Mylett, 822 S.E.2d 518, 523 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). The Court of Appeals majority disagreed, concluding that the statute applies to nonexpressive conduct and does not implicate the First Amendment. Id. at 524. Further, the majority determined that even assuming the First Amendment was implicated, the statute survives intermediate scrutiny as a content-neutral restriction. Id. at 524-26. Additionally, the majority rejected defendant's contentions that the undefined term "intimidate" renders N.C.G.S. § 14-225.2(a)(2) unconstitutionally void for vagueness and that the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for a jury instruction defining "intimidate" as requiring a "true threat." Id. at 526, 530. Finally,2 the majority concluded that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the conspiracy charge for insufficient evidence. Id. at 531.
Writing separately, Chief Judge McGee dissented, opining first that N.C.G.S. § 14-225.2(a)(2) is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to defendant and that the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for a jury instruction defining "intimidation." Id. at 531-41 (McGee, C.J., dissenting). Moreover, Chief Judge McGee concluded that even in the absence of any "true threat" requirement, the State presented insufficient evidence to support the conspiracy charge. Id. at 541-45.
On 7 January 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal as of right based on the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30(2).
Defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in: (1) concluding that the State presented sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to threaten or intimidate a juror; (2) rejecting defendant's constitutional challenges to N.C.G.S. § 14-225.2(a)(2) on the basis that it violates his First Amendment rights and that it is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; and (3) concluding that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's requested jury instruction defining "intimidate." We conclude that there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy to threaten or intimidate a juror and therefore the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the conspiracy charge. In light of our holding, we need not address defendant's other contentions.
When ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss for sufficiency of the evidence, the trial 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 of such offense." State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980) (). "Substantial evidence is evidence from which any rational trier of fact could find the fact to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Sumpter, 318 N.C. 102, 108, 347 S.E.2d 396, 399 (1986) (). "[T]he trial court must consider the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the State, drawing all reasonable inferences in the State's favor." State v. Miller, 363 N.C. 96, 98, 678 S.E.2d 592, 594 (2009) (citing State v. McCullers, 341 N.C. 19, 28-29, 460 S.E.2d 163, 168 (1995)). "A motion to dismiss should be granted, however, 'where the facts and circumstances warranted by the evidence do no more than raise a suspicion of guilt or conjecture since there would still remain a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt.' " State v. Turnage, 362 N.C. 491, 494, 666 S.E.2d 753, 755 (2008) (quoting State v. Stone, 323 N.C. 447, 452, 373 S.E.2d 430, 433 (1988)); see also Sumpter, 318 N.C. at 108, 347 S.E.2d at 399 . "Whether the State has presented substantial evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo." State v. China, 370 N.C. 627, 632, 811 S.E.2d 145, 149 (2018) (citing State v. Cox, 367 N.C. 147, 150-51, 749 S.E.2d 271, 274-75 (2013)).
"A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act in an unlawful way or by unlawful means." State v. Gibbs, 335 N.C. 1, 47, 436 S.E.2d 321, 347 (1993) (quoting State v. Bi...
To continue reading
Request your trial