Opinion
No. 07-858.
Filed March 18, 2008.
Wake County No. 06CRS36962, 06CRS48040.
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 17 January 2007 by Judge J.B. Allen, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 March 2008.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Kathryn Jones Cooper, for the State. Janna D. Allison, for Defendant.
Vernon Roberts (Defendant) appeals from judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and after he pleaded guilty to having attained habitual felon status. Defendant raises the sole issue that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of sufficient evidence. We find no error.
Defendant was indicted on 19 June 2006 for possession of a stolen motor vehicle and for attaining habitual felon status. At trial on the substantive charge, the State presented the following evidence. On the night of 28 April 2006 Donna Bennett returned home after work in her 2000 Toyota Camry and parked in the parking lot by her condominium. Ms. Bennett may have left the car doors unlocked, because her grandson was taking a long time to get out of the car. When she woke up the next day and went outside to get in her car to go to a meeting, she discovered her car was missing. She had not given anyone permission to use her car. She immediately called the Raleigh Police Department, and an officer came and took her statement. A description of the vehicle was broadcast across the police radio.
The police located the car that afternoon in Green Road Park, which is located less than a mile from Ms. Bennett's home. An unmarked police car waited at the entrance to the park until the car left the park about ten minutes later. The police followed the car as it drove around a nearby neighborhood, and then initiated a felony stop. Defendant was driving the vehicle and no other persons were in the car. The neighborhood where he was stopped was his own neighborhood where he lived. He appeared to the officers to be drunk.
After being arrested and taken to the police station, Defendant signed a waiver of his rights and gave a statement. He told the officers that the night before he was at a gas station in the area when a well known drug dealer named "D" approached him and asked Defendant if he wanted to rent a car for $10.00. Defendant agreed. "D" gave Defendant the keys and told Defendant he could find the car in Green Road Park nearby. Defendant walked to the park and got the car. Defendant stated he did not know the car was stolen. Neither the police officers, the gas station clerk, nor Ms. Bennett had ever heard of a person named "D" in that area.
At the close of the State's evidence Defendant moved to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence that he knew or had reason to believe the car was stolen. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant's only proffer of evidence was an exhibit consisting of a supplemental statement to the police report introduced by the State. Defendant did not offer any other evidence or any testimony. He did not renew his motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence. The jury returned a guilty verdict on the charge of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and Defendant subsequently admitted his status as an habitual felon. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an active term of a minimum of ninety months to a maximum of one hundred and seventeen months imprisonment.
Defendant argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the car was stolen. Defendant points to the statement made to the police in which he stated he rented the car and he did not know the car was stolen. He contends that since no evidence was presented to refute his statement, the State failed to meet its burden and the charge should have been dismissed. We disagree.
In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of sufficiency of evidence, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Scott, 356 N.C. 591, 596, 573 S.E.2d 866, 869 (2002) (citation omitted). Any contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal of the case. Id. Substantial evidence must be presented as to each element of the offense charged. Id. at 595, 573 S.E.2d at 868. "`Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" State v. Jarrett, 137 N.C. App. 256, 262, 527 S.E.2d 693, 697 (2000) (quoting State v. Jacobs, 128 N.C. App. 559, 563, 495 S.E.2d 757, 760-61 (1998)). Evidence may be direct, circumstantial, or both, as long as it substantially supports "`a finding that the offense charged has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the case is for the jury and the motion to dismiss should be denied.'" State v. McNeill, 359 N.C. 800, 804, 617 S.E.2d 271, 274 (2005) (quoting State v. Butler, 356 N.C. 141, 145, 567 S.E.2d 137, 140 (2002)).
The elements of possession of a stolen vehicle pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-106 (2007) are (1) possession of a stolen vehicle (2) that the person knows or has reason to believe has been stolen. Here, we find the State presented sufficient evidence to allow the jury to conclude that Defendant had reason to believe the car he was driving was stolen. The State presented evidence that Ms. Bennett's car was taken sometime the night of 28 April 2007; that she had not given permission to anyone to use her car; that she immediately reported the car stolen; the car was then located in a park near Ms. Bennett's home; that the car was driven by Defendant; that Defendant stated he rented the car for $10.00 from a drug dealer who could not thereafter be identified or located even though Defendant said this person was well known in the area; and that Defendant had to walk to the park from the gas station to get the car in order to use it.
Taking this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that Defendant had reason to believe the car was stolen due to the extremely low rental fee; the fact that the transaction was conducted with a drug dealer; and the fact that the car was not located in a car rental lot or normal place of business where a car might be rented. The fact that the evidence may be circumstantial does not mean the State has failed to meet its burden. See McNeill, 359 N.C. at 804, 617 S.E.2d at 274. The trial court therefore did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant's assignment of error is overruled.
No error.
Judges McGEE and STROUD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).