Opinion
No. COA11–1379.
2012-07-3
STATE of North Carolina, v. Walter Dennis ADAMS.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph E. Herrin, for the State. Faith S. Bushnaq for defendant-appellant.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 5 May 2011 by Judge James M. Webb in Moore County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 June 2012. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph E. Herrin, for the State. Faith S. Bushnaq for defendant-appellant.
ELMORE, District Judge.
Walter Dennis Adams (defendant) was found guilty of felony possession of cocaine and resisting a public officer. He pled guilty to habitual felon status. The convictions were consolidated for judgment and defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 80 to 105 months. We find no error.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the court erred by denying defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of resisting a public officer. Defendant contends that the evidence failed to establish every element of the offense.
The State's evidence tends to show that on 1 September 2006, Deputy Chris Lineberry of the Moore County Sheriff's Department drove to a residence for the purpose of serving a warrant for defendant's arrest. A lady came out of the residence and met the officer. The officer asked the lady whether defendant was there. Saying she would check, the lady returned inside the house. As the officer stood by his patrol car, defendant approached the officer's vehicle from the side of the residence. The officer asked defendant whether he was “Walter Adams.” Defendant reached to take the paper from the officer's hand and then ran. As he yelled at defendant to stop, the officer chased defendant. The officer observed defendant throw something to the ground. The officer eventually caught up with defendant, placed him under arrest, and handcuffed him. The officer went back to look for what defendant threw to the ground. The officer found a pharmacy bottle which contained a white rocklike substance.
At the close of the State's evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the charges. After the court denied the motion, defendant elected not to present evidence.
Upon a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, the trial court must determine whether there is substantial evidence to establish each element of the offense charged and to identify the defendant as the perpetrator. State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 65–66, 296 S.E.2d 649, 651 (1982). The court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 566, 313 S.E.2d 585, 587 (1984).
Although defendant moved to dismiss both charges at trial, he appeals only the ruling denying the motion to dismiss the charge of resisting arrest. One is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor if he “shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office....” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–223 (2011). To obtain a conviction of this offense, five elements must be established: (1) the victim was a public officer; (2) the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the victim was a public officer; (3) the victim was discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office; (4) the defendant resisted, delayed, or obstructed the victim 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. Dammons, 159 N.C.App. 284, 294, 583 S.E.2d 606, 612,disc. review denied,357 N.C. 579, 589 S.E.2d 133 (2003), cert. denied,541 U.S. 951, 158 L.Ed.2d 382 (2004).
Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that he intentionally or knowingly resisted, delayed, or obstructed an officer who was attempting to discharge a duty of his office. We disagree. “The conduct proscribed under G.S. 14–223 is not limited to resisting an arrest but includes any resistance, delay, or obstruction of an officer in the discharge of his duties.” State v. Lynch, 94 N.C.App. 330, 332, 380 S.E.2d 397, 398 (1989). The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State shows that (1) the officer came to the residence for the purpose of serving an order for defendant's arrest, (2) that when the officer sought to confirm that defendant was the person named in the warrant, defendant attempted to snatch the paper out of the officer's hand, and (3) that defendant ran and disregarded the officer's calls to stop. We conclude that based upon this evidence, a jury could reasonably find that defendant committed the offense proscribed by N . C. Gen.Stat. § 14–223.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss.
No error. Judges HUNTER, Robert C., and McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).