Case Title: Kiker v. Winfield

Citation: 

Docket Number: 225A14

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 2015-04-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. COA13-1235 
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS 
Filed: 17 June 2014 
 
 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
Rutherford County 
No. 11 CRS 52801 
    12 CRS 1594 
 
HOWARD JUNIOR EDGERTON 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 21 March 2013 by 
Judge Gary M. Gavenus in Rutherford County Superior Court.  
Heard in the Court of Appeals on 20 March 2014.  
 
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General 
Teresa M. Postell, for the State. 
 
 
Michael E. Casterline, for defendant-appellant. 
 
HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. 
 
 
Howard Junior Edgerton (“Defendant”) appeals from a 21 
March 2013 judgment sentencing him as a level VI offender for 
violating a domestic violence protective order (“DVPO”) with a 
deadly weapon.  Defendant argues that the trial court erred by 
failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included misdemeanor 
offense of violation of a DVPO.  We agree and order a new trial.  
-2- 
 
 
I. Facts & Procedural History 
 
Defendant was indicted on 9 July 2012 for violating a DVPO 
with a deadly weapon in 11 CRS 052801, and with assault with a 
deadly weapon with intent to kill (“AWDWIK”), assault by 
strangulation, and second-degree kidnapping in 11 CRS 052829.  
Defendant was indicted with AWDWIK and second-degree kidnapping 
in 11 CRS 052830 and 11 CRS 052831.  On 9 July 2012, Defendant 
was charged with habitual felon status in 12 CRS 1594.  
Defendant stood trial on 18–21 March 2013 in Rutherford County 
Superior Court.  The record and trial transcript tended to show 
the following facts. 
 
Brandon Hamilton (“Mr. Hamilton”) testified first for the 
State.  Mr. Hamilton said Jacquie King (“Ms. King”), Amber 
Harkless (“Ms. Harkless”), and Dianna Moore (“Ms. Moore”) drove 
to pick up Defendant around 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. on 27 August 
2011.  The group was traveling to the “Boom Boom Room,” which 
Mr. Hamilton described as a “bootlegger” in Lake Lure, where the 
group “had a few drinks.”  Mr. Hamilton said he knew that 
Defendant and Ms. King were previously in a relationship before 
the evening’s events took place.   
Mr. Hamilton described Defendant as “cool” and “laid back” 
initially, but then said Defendant became angry after Mr. 
-3- 
 
 
Hamilton “complimented [Ms. King] on her weight loss.”  After 
Mr. Hamilton made these remarks, Mr. Hamilton said the situation 
escalated and that Defendant threatened him.  After Defendant 
levied these threats, the group got into the car to take 
Defendant home, whereupon Defendant started hitting Ms. King and 
brandished a pocket knife.  After the group stopped the car, 
Defendant left the vehicle, re-entered, and then began “sawing 
[Ms. King’s] neck with a dull knife.”  Mr. Hamilton said he knew 
it was a dull knife because “if it was a sharp knife, I am 
pretty sure – he was sawing at it – she would be dead right 
now.”   
Mr. Hamilton told Ms. Harkless and Ms. King to leave the 
car, and Defendant continued to threaten them both.  Ms. 
Harkless then drove Defendant to his home and later called 
police, who met Defendant at his home.  Mr. Hamilton spoke with 
police when they arrived but did not give a statement at that 
time.  Mr. Hamilton said Ms. King had “road rash and scars on 
her neck.  She had a few knots on her.”  Mr. Hamilton said that 
Defendant’s sawing of Ms. King’s neck produced only scratches 
because 
the 
knife 
was 
“completely 
dull.” 
 
Mr. 
Hamilton 
eventually gave a statement to police. 
-4- 
 
 
Ms. King testified at trial, saying she was in an abusive 
relationship with Defendant.  Ms. King said she was afraid of 
Defendant and that Defendant 
beat me, punch[ed] me in my face.  One time 
he 
kicked 
me 
down 
probably 
a 
20-foot 
embankment. It was so many things.  It was 
abuse every day.  Hit me.  He would get 
drunk and punch me in my face, kick me.  He 
tried to burn my trailer one time.  He 
pulled my mattress into the middle of my 
trailer.  I had people staying with me that 
had a baby, and he said get your baby out of 
the house because I am about to burn this 
down. 
 
Ms. King said she stayed in a relationship with Defendant 
because she was “scared of him”  Ms. King later obtained a one-
week temporary restraining order in April 2011 after she said 
Defendant “pulled a shotgun on” her and her friend.  Ms. King 
later received a year-long DVPO requiring Defendant to avoid all 
contact with Ms. King. 
 
After the DVPO was granted, Ms. King said Defendant 
continued to seek contact with her.  Eventually Ms. King “went 
back to him” because she said Defendant “acted like he had 
changed – like he wasn’t going to be abusive anymore.”   Ms. 
King said Defendant was “[c]alm, respectful, not aggressive at 
all” when he visited her home the two weeks prior to the evening 
at issue. 
-5- 
 
 
 
Ms. King said the trip to the Boom Boom Room was the first 
time that she went out to a club with Defendant since obtaining 
the DVPO.  Ms. King also said Defendant was calm at first during 
the group’s time at the Boom Boom Room, but that Defendant 
became aggressive and began to accuse her of having sexual 
relations with other members of the group.  Ms. King said she 
began to get nervous and wanted to leave Defendant at the Boom 
Boom Room, but that Defendant was insistent that he be brought 
home.  After the group allowed him to travel with them, Ms. King 
said Defendant became “wild” and that he began punching Ms. King 
in the face. 
Ms. Harkless stopped the vehicle when she realized that 
Defendant was hitting Ms. King.  Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Moore, and 
Defendant exited the vehicle and Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Moore 
confronted Defendant.  Ms. King said that Defendant began to 
chase Ms. Moore and Mr. Hamilton with a knife and that Defendant 
was trying to inflict injuries with the knife.  Ms. King said 
Defendant then reentered the vehicle, ordered Ms. Harkless to 
drive, and began “cutting [Ms. King’s] throat.”  Ms. King said 
Defendant continued to choke her and told her she would die that 
evening.  Ms. King also said Defendant wasn’t “slicing [her] 
throat” but that Defendant was “digging in with the knife and 
-6- 
 
 
cutting knicks on my neck, cutting parts of my neck.”  Ms. King 
said the cuts on her neck bled, but she did not know the amount 
of blood produced by the cuts. 
Ms. King said she was able to dislodge a car door while the 
vehicle was still traveling around 40 to 50 miles per hour 
toward Defendant’s father’s home, where Defendant lived.  As the 
car approached the home at around 5 to 10 miles per hour, Ms. 
King said she was pushed by Defendant from the vehicle.  Twenty 
minutes later, Ms. King said a number of police officers 
returned with Defendant in custody.  Ms. King said Defendant was 
“beating his head against the police window and screaming [her] 
name” while officers took photos of her injuries. 
Ms. King also described her interview with Detective Ricky 
McKinney 
(“Detective 
McKinney”) 
of 
the 
Rutherford 
County 
Sheriff’s Department.  Ms. King initially told Detective 
McKinney that she met Defendant at the Boom Boom Room rather 
than that the group had picked Defendant up beforehand.  Ms. 
King said her statement was not true and that she told Detective 
McKinney this because she did not want to disappoint her family.  
Ms. King also gave a statement to Detective McKinney, which also 
contained an incorrect statement about the composition of the 
group who traveled to the Boom Boom Room. 
-7- 
 
 
Corporal Stephen Ellis (“Corporal Ellis”) testified next at 
trial.  Corporal Ellis responded to a 911 hang-up call and 
information that Defendant “was assaulting people” in a vehicle.  
Corporal Ellis traveled toward Defendant’s residence and located 
Ms. King laying on the ground alongside Grassy Knob Road.  
Corporal Ellis spoke with Ms. King about the evening’s events 
and said she was afraid and “visibly upset.”  Ms. King led 
Corporal Ellis to Defendant’s residence because Corporal Ellis 
had information that Defendant was possibly holding Ms. Harkless 
against her will.  Corporal Ellis arrested Defendant, whom 
Corporal Ellis said became belligerent after being arrested. 
Corporal Ellis took Defendant back to where he originally 
found Ms. King and began to complete an incident report, to 
photograph Ms. King’s injuries, and to take statements from Ms. 
King and Ms. Harkless.  Corporal Ellis also said Defendant 
became irate in the back of his patrol vehicle and hit his head 
against the car’s windows.  Corporal Ellis said Ms. King had 
“lots of red marks on her chest and around her neck area, . . . 
visible nicks or cuts to the top of her throat” and several 
bruises.  Corporal Ellis also observed blood on Ms. King’s 
shirt. 
-8- 
 
 
Officer Tyler Greene (“Officer Greene”) was with Corporal 
Ellis on the evening at issue in this case.  Officer Greene 
recounted similar statements as Corporal Ellis.  Officer Greene 
said he observed cuts on Ms. King’s neck and chin, but that they 
were difficult to see in the photograph presented at trial. 
Detective McKinney testified at trial.  Detective McKinney 
interviewed Ms. King, Ms. Harkless, and Ms. Moore two days after 
the events in question at the sheriff’s office on 29 August 
2011.  Mr. Hamilton did not provide a statement at that time.  
Forensics Investigator Bruce Green testified that Ms. King 
brought a shirt to the sheriff’s office on 31 August 2011, which 
Mr. Green identified as a shirt with blood staining. 
The State rested its case and Defendant made a motion to 
dismiss.  The trial court granted Defendant’s motion with 
respect to all charges involving Ms. Harkless (11 CRS 52830) and 
Ms. Moore (11 CRS 52831).  The trial court also dismissed the 
kidnapping charge involving Ms. King in 11 CRS 52829, but denied 
the motion as relating to the remaining charges.  Defendant did 
not present any evidence.  The jury found Defendant guilty of 
violating the DVPO with a deadly weapon in 11 CRS 52801, but not 
guilty of the remaining offenses.  Defendant then entered a 
guilty plea to Habitual Felon status and was sentenced in the 
-9- 
 
 
aggravated range for a Class C felony as a prior record level 
VI.  Defendant was sentenced to an active term of 168 to 211 
months.  Defendant filed written notice of appeal on 16 April 
2013. 
II. Jurisdiction & Standard of Review 
 
Defendant appeals pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b), 
15A-1444(a) (2013).  However, Defendant did not timely file his 
notice of appeal in violation of N.C. R. App. P. 4.  Failure to 
comply with Rule 4 constitutes a jurisdictional default, which 
“precludes the appellate court from acting in any manner other 
than to dismiss the appeal.”  Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White 
Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 197, 657 S.E.2d 361, 365 (2008).  
Accordingly, 
we 
dismiss 
Defendant’s 
appeal, 
but, 
in 
our 
discretion, we allow Defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari 
to review the merits of his arguments pursuant to N.C. R. App. 
P. 21. 
On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in 
refusing to instruct the jury on a lesser-included misdemeanor 
offense of violating a DVPO when it instructed the jury on 
violating a DVPO with a deadly weapon.  Defendant did not object 
to the jury instruction at issue here, meaning that it was not 
preserved for appeal.  However, “[i]n criminal cases, an issue 
-10- 
 
 
that was not preserved by objection noted at trial and that is 
not deemed preserved by rule or law without any such action 
nevertheless may be made the basis of an issue presented on 
appeal when the judicial action questioned is specifically and 
distinctly contended to amount to plain error.”  N.C. R. App. P. 
10(a)(4); see also State v. Goss, 361 N.C. 610, 622, 651 S.E.2d 
867, 875 (2007). 
 “To establish plain error, defendant must show that the 
erroneous jury instruction was a fundamental error—that the 
error had a probable impact on the jury verdict.”  State v. 
Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518, 723 S.E.2d 326, 334 (2012).  “Under 
the plain error rule, defendant must convince this Court not 
only that there was error, but that absent the error, the jury 
probably would have reached a different result.”  State v. 
Jordan, 333 N.C. 431, 440, 426 S.E.2d 692, 697 (1993). 
III. Analysis 
 
We hold that because the trial court concluded that the 
knife used in this case was not a deadly weapon per se, the 
trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser-
included misdemeanor offense of violating a DVPO.  We also hold 
that failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included 
-11- 
 
 
misdemeanor offense was plain error because it likely affected 
the outcome in this case. 
In 
State 
v. 
Weaver, 
our 
Supreme 
Court 
adopted 
a 
definitional test for determining whether one crime is a lesser 
included offense of another crime.  306 N.C. 629, 635, 295 
S.E.2d 375, 378–79 (1982), disapproved of on other grounds by 
State v. Collins, 334 N.C. 54, 431 S.E.2d 188 (1993).  That test 
requires that  
all of the essential elements of the lesser 
crime 
must 
also 
be 
essential 
elements 
included in the greater crime.  If the 
lesser crime has an essential element which 
is not completely covered by the greater 
crime, it is not a lesser included offense.  
The determination is made on a definitional, 
not a factual basis.   
 
Id. at 535, 295 S.E.2d at 379. 
Under the definitional test, the misdemeanor crime of 
violating a DVPO1 is a lesser included offense of the felony 
crime of violating a DVPO with a deadly weapon.2  Both crimes 
have identical elements of (i) knowingly (ii) violating a (iii) 
valid 
DVPO, 
except 
that 
the 
felony 
offense 
includes 
an 
additional element that the perpetrator be in “possession of a 
deadly weapon on or about his or her person or within close 
                     
1 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-4.1(a) (2013). 
2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-4.1(g) (2013). 
-12- 
 
 
proximity to his or her person.”  Compare N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-
4.1(a) with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-4.1(g).  The felony offense 
also explicitly references the misdemeanor offense.  N.C. Gen. 
Stat. § 50B-4.1(g) (“Unless covered under some other provision 
of law providing greater punishment, any person who, while in 
possession of a deadly weapon on or about his or her person or 
within close proximity to his or her person, knowingly violates 
a valid protective order as provided in subsection (a) of this 
section by failing to stay away from a place, or a person, as so 
directed under the terms of the order, shall be guilty of a 
Class H felony.”). 
As the misdemeanor violation of a DVPO is a lesser included 
offense of the felony violation of a DVPO, Defendant was also 
entitled to a jury instruction on that charge “‘if the evidence 
would permit a jury rationally to find him guilty of the lesser 
offense and acquit him of the greater.’”  State v. Tillery, 186 
N.C. App. 447, 450, 651 S.E.2d 291, 294 (2007) (quoting Keeble 
v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 208 (1973)).  The dispositive 
factor is the presence of evidence to support a conviction of 
the lesser-included offense.  Id.  As such, we must determine 
whether the jury could have rationally found that the knife used 
by the Defendant did not constitute a deadly weapon and also 
-13- 
 
 
whether there is evidence to support a conviction of misdemeanor 
violation of a DVPO. 
In North Carolina, a “deadly weapon is one which, under the 
circumstances of its use, is likely to cause death or great 
bodily harm.”  State v. Walker, 204 N.C. App. 431, 444, 694 
S.E.2d 484, 493 (2010).  Generally, a weapon is determined to be 
“deadly” depending on its use and its characteristics. However, 
North Carolina courts have found some weapons to constitute 
deadly weapons per se.  “Some weapons are per se deadly, e.g. a 
rifle or pistol: others, owing to the great and furious violence 
and manner of use, become deadly.”  State v. Cauley, 244 N.C. 
701, 707, 94 S.E.2d 915, 920 (1956).  This Court has found that 
knives are not always dangerous weapons per se and that the 
circumstances of each case are determinative.  See State v. 
Smallwood, 78 N.C. App. 365, 368, 337 S.E.2d 143, 144–45 (1985). 
In this case, the trial court concluded that the knife used 
by the Defendant was not a deadly weapon per se, as evidenced by 
the trial court’s decision not to instruct the jury that the 
weapon used by the Defendant was deadly as a matter of law.  The 
trial court instructed the jury that in order to find the 
Defendant guilty of violating a DVPO while in possession of a 
deadly weapon, the jury must “consider the nature of the knife, 
-14- 
 
 
the manner in which it was used, and the size and strength of 
the defendant as compared to the victim.”  The record also shows 
conflicting evidence as to whether or not the knife used by the 
Defendant on the victim was capable of producing death or great 
bodily harm.  For example, Mr. Hamilton stated that the knife 
was so dull that even though Defendant was “sawing” Ms. King’s 
neck with the pocket knife, Ms. King was left with only “knicks” 
on her neck.  However, the jury may also consider the nature of 
the knife’s use, the size of the knife, and the strength of the 
party when determining whether the knife is a deadly weapon.  
State v. Palmer, 293 N.C. 633, 643, 239 S.E.2d 406, 413 (1977) 
(“If there is a conflict in the evidence regarding either the 
nature of the weapon or the manner of its use, with some of the 
evidence tending to show that the weapon used or as used would 
not likely produce death or great bodily harm and other evidence 
tending to show the contrary, the jury must, of course, resolve 
the conflict.”). Therefore, the trial court correctly determined 
that the knife used by the Defendant in this case was not a 
deadly weapon per se, and properly left this determination to 
the jury. 
Having instructed the jury to determine whether the knife 
used in this case constituted a deadly weapon, the trial court 
-15- 
 
 
should have next instructed the jury on the lesser-included 
misdemeanor offense.  This Court was presented with a similar 
issue in Tillery. 
In Tillery, the Defendant used a 2x4 board in the course of 
an assault.  186 N.C. App. at 447, 651 S.E.2d at 292.  The trial 
court instructed the jury on the offense of assault with a 
deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, but refused to instruct 
on the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor assault inflicting 
serious injury.  Id. at 448, 651 S.E.2d at 293.  On appeal, the 
Defendant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to 
instruct on the lesser-included misdemeanor.  Id. at 449, 651 
S.E.2d at 293.  This Court agreed, holding that because the 
trial court did not find the 2x4 board to be a deadly weapon per 
se, the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the 
lesser-included 
offense 
of 
misdemeanor 
assault 
inflicting 
serious injury.  Id. at 451, 651 S.E.2d at 294; see also State 
v. Lowe, 150 N.C. App. 682, 686, 564 S.E.2d 313, 316 (2002) 
(finding plain error for the trial court’s failure to instruct 
the jury on the lesser-included misdemeanor assault charge, when 
“[t]here is sufficient evidence from which the jury could find 
that the [weapons used] were not used as deadly weapons”). 
-16- 
 
 
 
Here, as in Tillery, the evidence presented at trial 
conflicted over whether the weapon used by the Defendant 
constituted a deadly weapon.  In both cases, the only element 
that distinguished the felony offense from the misdemeanor 
offense was the Defendant’s use of a deadly weapon in the course 
of the crime.  We hold that, in this case, based on conflicting 
evidence of the knife’s deadly qualities, a jury could have 
rationally found the Defendant guilty of the lesser-included 
offense of misdemeanor violation of a DVPO. 
 
We must next consider whether the trial court’s failure to 
instruct the jury on the lesser-included misdemeanor offense 
rose to the level of plain error.  “In deciding whether a defect 
in the jury instruction constitutes plain error, the appellate 
court must examine the entire record and determine if the 
instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding 
of guilt.”  State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 661, 300 S.E.2d 375, 
378–79 (1983) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 
Here, the State presented a strong case for the lesser-
included violation of the DVPO.  Defendant signed the DVPO.  The 
timeframe for the DVPO was in effect at the time of the 
incident.  The DVPO was filed on 18 May 2011, was effective 
until 18 May 2012, and the incidents at issue occurred on 27 
-17- 
 
 
August 2011, clearly within the time period of the DVPO.  There 
was also extensive testimony that Defendant contacted and sought 
contact with Ms. King, which concerns whether he knowingly 
violated the DVPO. 
At trial, Defendant was found guilty of violating the DVPO 
with a deadly weapon; all other charges were dismissed or 
Defendant was found not guilty by the jury.  The jury returned a 
not guilty verdict for two charges that included an element of a 
deadly weapon, including assault with a deadly weapon under N.C. 
Gen. Stat. § 14-32(b) (2013).  It is unclear whether the jury 
considered the knife a “deadly weapon” as to that charge, or 
whether the jury did not consider the injuries Ms. King 
sustained to be “serious” under § 14-32.  However, the record 
shows there was extensive testimony about bruising, cuts, and 
other injuries 
to Ms. King, 
as well as testimony that 
Defendant’s knife was very dull.  Whether the jury did or did 
not believe the knife was a deadly weapon, however, there was 
not a sentencing option to find Defendant guilty solely of 
violating the DVPO.  With the elements of the misdemeanor DVPO 
violation likely met, the jury’s only method to sentence 
Defendant for violating the DVPO was through the felony 
violation of a DVPO with a deadly weapon.  The lack of the 
-18- 
 
 
misdemeanor sentencing option, in light of the jury’s finding 
that Defendant was not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon or 
AWDWIK, likely impacted the jury’s finding of guilt on the 
felony charge.  Accordingly, the trial court’s failure to 
instruct on the misdemeanor of violating the DVPO rose to the 
level of plain error.  As such, we remand this matter for a new 
trial.  In light of our decision, we decline to address 
Defendant’s remaining assignments of error. 
IV. Conclusion 
For the reasons stated above, we order a  
NEW TRIAL. 
Judge STROUD concurs. 
Judge DILLON dissents in a separate opinion. 
NO. COA13-1235 
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS 
Filed: 17 June 2014 
 
 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
Rutherford County 
No. 11 CRS 52801 
    12 CRS 1594 
HOWARD JUNIOR EDGERTON 
 
 
 
 
DILLON, Judge, dissenting. 
 
 
I do not agree with the majority that any error by the 
trial court in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-
included misdemeanor domestic violence protective order (“DVPO”) 
violation rose to the level of plain error; and, therefore, I 
respectfully dissent. 
A 
person 
who 
knowingly 
violates 
a 
DVPO 
commits 
a 
misdemeanor,  see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-4.1(a) (2013); unless 
the person who violates the DVPO does so “while in the 
possession of a deadly weapon on or about his or her person or 
within close proximity to his or her person[,]” in which case 
that person is guilty of a felony.  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-
4.1(g).  As the majority correctly points out, the question is 
whether any error by the trial court in failing to instruct the 
jury on the lesser misdemeanor DVPO in the present case rose to 
-2- 
 
 
the level of plain error; that is, whether the jury probably 
would have convicted Defendant of misdemeanor DVPO, thereby 
concluding that the State had failed to prove that the knife was 
a “deadly weapon.”  State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518, 723 
S.E.2d 326, 334 (2012). 
The pocketknife, which Defendant brandished in the victim’s 
face and about her neck while choking her and threatening to 
kill her, had a blade which was described at trial as a “little 
duller than average.”  I certainly believe it is possible that 
the jury could have determined that the knife was not a deadly 
weapon, and would have, therefore, convicted Defendant of only a 
misdemeanor DVPO violation had it been instructed on this 
lesser-included offense.  However, I also believe that the 
evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding that the knife 
was, indeed, a deadly weapon. Accordingly, I cannot say that the 
jury “probably” would have convicted Defendant of a misdemeanor 
DVPO if given that option. 
The majority argues that the failure to instruct on a 
misdemeanor DVPO violation had a “probable impact” because the 
jury’s verdict to convict on the felony DVPO violation was 
inconsistent with their decision to acquit Defendant of assault 
with a deadly weapon and AWDWIK, crimes which require a finding 
-3- 
 
 
that Defendant possessed a deadly weapon.  In explaining 
inconsistent verdicts, our Supreme Court has stated as follows: 
[Inconsistent 
verdicts] 
should 
not 
necessarily be interpreted as a windfall to 
the Government at the defendant’s expense.  
It is equally possible that the jury, 
convinced of guilt, probably reached its 
conclusion 
on 
[one 
offense], 
and 
then 
through 
mistake, 
compromise, 
or 
lenity, 
arrived at an inconsistent conclusion on the 
[other offense]. 
 
. . . . 
 
Inconsistent verdicts therefore present a 
situation where “error,” in the sense that 
the jury has not followed the court’s 
instructions, most certainly has occurred, 
but it is unclear whose ox has been gored.  
Given the uncertainty, and the fact that the 
Government is precluded from challenging the 
acquittal, it is hardly satisfactory to 
allow the defendant to receive a new trial 
on the conviction as a matter of course. 
 
State v. Mumford, 364 N.C. 394, 399-400, 699 S.E.2d 911, 915 
(2010) (quoting United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 83 L. Ed. 
2d 461 (1984)).  Therefore, following our Supreme Court’s 
rationale in Mumford, I cannot say that, in the present case, it 
is probable the jury would have acquitted Defendant of a felony 
DVPO violation based on its acquittal of the assault charges.  
It is “equally possible” that the jury was convinced of 
Defendant’s guilt of the Chapter 50B charge, but that it reached 
an inconsistent verdict on the Chapter 14 assault charges – 
-4- 
 
 
assuming that the verdicts were, indeed, inconsistent3 – through 
“mistake, compromise or lenity[.]”  Id. 
 
                     
3  
It 
is 
possible 
that 
the 
jury’s 
verdicts 
were 
not 
inconsistent.  Specifically, whether a weapon is deadly in the 
context of the Chapter 14 assault crimes for which Defendant was 
acquitted might depend on the “circumstances of [the weapon’s] 
use,” State v. Lowe, 150 N.C. App. 682, 686, 564 S.E.2d 313, 316 
(2002), whereas the Chapter 50B felony for which Defendant was 
convicted does not require that the defendant “use” the weapon 
at all, but only that he possessed it when he violated the DVPO.  
Accordingly, the jury may have determined that the knife was a 
deadly weapon, but that he did not use it in a manner which was 
likely to cause death.