State v. Oldroyd

Decision Date11 March 2022
Docket Number260A20
Parties STATE of North Carolina v. Marc Peterson OLDROYD
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Ryan Y. Park, Solicitor General, Sarah G. Boyce, Deputy Solicitor General, and Heyward Earnhardt, Solicitor General Fellow, for the State-appellant.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Emily Holmes Davis, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

MORGAN, Justice.

¶ 1 A Yadkin County Grand Jury indicted defendant for first-degree murder, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon on 28 January 2013. Defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of second-degree murder as well as the two robbery charges. Defendant filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief (MAR) and a Supplemental Motion for Appropriate Relief (Supplemental MAR), asserting that the indictment which charged him with the offense of attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon was fatally flawed because it did not include the name of a victim. Both motions were denied by the trial court. Defendant sought and obtained appellate review of these denials. He renewed his position in the Court of Appeals concerning the deficiencies of the charging instrument. A majority of the lower appellate court agreed with defendant in a divided decision, holding that the indictment's description of the victims of defendant's attempted robbery as the "employees of the Huddle House located at 1538 NC Highway 67, Jonesville, North Carolina" was insufficient because the indictment did not comply with the requirement that this Court enunciated in State v. Scott , 237 N.C. 432, 433, 75 S.E.2d 154 (1953) that the name of the person against whom the offense was directed be stated with exactitude. State v. Oldroyd , 271 N.C. App. 544, 551, 843 S.E.2d 478 (2020). Because the indictment at issue in the present case satisfies the dual purposes of (1) informing defendant of the specific crime that he was accused of committing in order to allow him to prepare a defense, and (2) protecting defendant from being twice put in jeopardy for the alleged commission of the same offense, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 Defendant, Scott Sica, and Brian Whitaker devised a plan to conduct a 5 October 1996 robbery of the Huddle House restaurant in Jonesville. The plan called for the men to visit a car dealership and to ask to take one of the dealership's vehicles for a test drive. During this test drive, whomever among the three men operated the vehicle would switch a fake key for the vehicle's actual key. After returning to the dealership with the vehicle and having the driver to hand over the fake key as if it were the vehicle's real key, defendant and his two counterparts would then return to the car dealership after it had closed so that the men could ride away in the vehicle that had been used for the supposed test drive. Next in the plan, Sica and Whitaker would drive to the Huddle House establishment in the stolen vehicle to commit the robbery, while defendant would be positioned nearby in Whitaker's green Dodge pickup truck in order to immediately join Sica and Whitaker after the completion of the robbery. The trio would then abandon the vehicle stolen from the car dealership and complete their getaway in the green Dodge pickup truck.

¶ 3 On 1 October 1996, in accordance with the criminal plan, two of the men stole a red Dodge pickup truck from a car dealership in West Virginia. Defendant, Sica, and Whitaker proceeded to Jonesville on 5 October 1996. Sica and Whitaker went to the Huddle House to commit the robbery, while defendant waited in the green Dodge pickup truck at a nearby meeting place where Sica and Whitaker would abandon the stolen red Dodge pickup truck and then enter the green Dodge pickup truck to execute their escape. Sica and Whitaker arrived at the Huddle House as planned and parked behind the business, armed with a 9mm Beretta handgun and a .357 revolver. The two men observed an open door at the back of the restaurant, but a group of Huddle House employees soon exited the establishment and closed the door behind them. Sica got out of the red Dodge pickup truck and approached the rear door of the restaurant but discovered that it was locked. Sica then returned to the stolen truck to discuss the next steps with Whitaker, when the pair saw Sergeant Greg Martin of the Jonesville Police Department drive by the location. Sica and Whitaker decided to leave the Huddle House, but Sergeant Martin quickly initiated a traffic stop on the stolen red Dodge pickup truck and called for backup officers. Defendant, realizing that Sica and Whitaker had not returned to the rendezvous point within the planned time period, drove the green Dodge pickup truck toward the main thoroughfare and saw that law enforcement had interrupted Sica and Whitaker. Defendant continued to drive past the scene before doubling back to return to it.

¶ 4 Sergeant Martin asked Sica and Whitaker to exit the red Dodge pickup truck; the men complied. Sergeant Martin asked Sica and Whitaker for permission to search the vehicle; the men consented. Sica and Whitaker stood outside the vehicle while the law enforcement officer began to search a bag that contained the masks that the two men had planned to use in the robbery of the Huddle House. Sica drew a handgun and shot Sergeant Martin in the head six times, killing the law enforcement officer instantly. Sica and Whitaker fled the scene but could not find defendant; as a result, the two men detoured to a nearby business where they abandoned the stolen red Dodge pickup truck and replaced it by stealing a work van belonging to the business. Defendant, upon returning to the scene of the traffic stop, noticed that the red Dodge pickup truck in which Sica and Whitaker had been traveling had left and that four more law enforcement vehicles had arrived. Defendant overheard a police scanner announcement that an officer "was down." Defendant panicked and fled to his cousin's house in Gastonia, where he reunited with Sica and Whitaker later in the day and was informed of the unexpected events that transpired. The three men traveled to a Home Depot business in the area to abandon the work van which had been taken.

¶ 5 The State's investigation of Sergeant Martin's murder stalled for a number of years. Eventually, investigators were able to discover the identities of the three men and their possible involvement with the murder as part of a failed robbery attempt. Law enforcement officers simultaneously approached defendant, Sica, and Whitaker on 2 October 2012. Defendant and Whitaker each provided full confessions to their roles in the wrongdoing; Sica denied any involvement.

¶ 6 After his arrest, defendant was indicted by a Yadkin County Grand Jury on 28 January 2013 on one count each of first-degree murder, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant's indictment for attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon alleged that, on 5 October 1996, defendant attempted

to steal, take and carry away another's personal property, United States currency, from the person and presence of employees of the Huddle House located at 1538 NC Highway 67, Jonesville, North Carolina. The defendant committed this act by having in possession and with the use and threatened use of a firearm, a 9mm handgun, whereby the life of the Huddle House employees was threatened and endangered.

(Emphasis added.) Defendant's plea hearing took place on 2 June 2014, where Detective Ron Perry provided, without objection, the factual basis for defendant's charged offenses. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count each of second-degree murder, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court sentenced defendant to 120 to 153 months in prison.

¶ 7 On 9 June 2015, defendant filed a pro se motion for appropriate relief (MAR) in which he alleged, inter alia , that his indictment for attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon was "fatally flawed in that it does not name a victim." The trial court entered an order denying defendant's MAR on 9 March 2017, concluding as a matter of law that "there are no fatal defects in the indictments." Defendant then filed a Supplemental MAR on 16 January 2018, asserting many of the same claims for relief that he asserted in his original MAR. The trial court denied defendant's Supplemental MAR on 16 July 2018, concluding that defendant's claims were both meritless and procedurally barred either by defendant's failure to raise the issues in his original MAR or by the fact that defendant had already raised the issues in his initial MAR. Defendant then petitioned the Court of Appeals for a Writ of Certiorari which was allowed by the lower appellate court on 28 November 2018 for the limited purpose of reviewing the trial court's conclusion that there were no fatal defects in defendant's indictments. On 19 May 2020, the Court of Appeals issued a divided decision which reversed the trial court's order denying defendant's MAR, with the majority holding that the indictment for robbery with a dangerous weapon "must have named a victim to be valid." Oldroyd , 271 N.C. App. at 552, 843 S.E.2d 478. The State filed a notice of appeal to this Court based upon the dissenting opinion filed in the Court of Appeals regarding the outcome of this case, with the dissent registering its disagreement with the majority's conclusion that the indictment at issue here was fatally defective.

II. Analysis

¶ 8 When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of an indictment lodged against him, that challenge presents this Court with a question of law which we review de novo. State v. White , 372 N.C. 248, 250, 827 S.E.2d 80 (2019). An indictment need not conform to any "technical rules of pleading," ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • In re J.A.D.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 19 de abril de 2022
    ...for charging armed robbery set out in this Court's opinion in State v. Oldroyd , 271 N.C. App. 544, 843 S.E.2d 478 (2020), rev'd , 2022-NCSC-27, 869 S.E.2d 193. This Court's opinion in Oldroyd has been reversed and is no longer binding.¶ 14 In Oldroyd , the defendant was convicted of attemp......
  • State v. Lancaster, COA21-231
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 19 de julho de 2022
    ...jury indictment unless the indictment "asserts facts supporting every element of the criminal offense" being charged. State v. Oldroyd , 380 N.C. 613, 2022-NCSC-27, ¶8, 869 S.E.2d 193. And "[w]hether or not a trial court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that is rev......
  • State v. Lawson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 6 de setembro de 2022
    ...of an indictment lodged against him, that challenge presents this Court with a question of law which we review de novo. " State v. Oldroyd , 380 N.C. 613, 2022-NCSC-27, ¶ 8, 869 S.E.2d 193. Indictments are not required to conform to any "technical rules of pleading." State v. Sturdivant, 30......
  • State v. Guice
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 18 de outubro de 2022
    ...[a criminal pleading] lodged against him, that challenge presents this Court with a question of law which we review de novo." State v. Oldroyd , 380 N.C. 613, 2022-NCSC-27, ¶ 8, 869 S.E.2d 193 (citation omitted). Criminal pleadings function to "identify clearly the crime being charged, ther......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT