Case Title: State v. Ditenhafer

Citation: 

Docket Number: 126A18-2

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-19 
No. 126A18-2 
Filed 12 March 2021 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
v. 
MARDI JEAN DITENHAFER 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 
the Court of Appeals, 840 S.E.2d 850 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020), finding no error in a 
judgment entered on 1 June 2015 by Judge Paul G. Gessner in Superior Court, Wake 
County.  Heard in the Supreme Court on 11 January 2021. 
 
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Sherri Horner Lawrence, Special Deputy 
Attorney General, for the State-appellee. 
 
Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, for defendant-appellant. 
 
 
ERVIN, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
The issue before us in this case involves the sufficiency of the evidence to 
support defendant Mardi Jean Ditenhafer’s conviction for felonious obstruction of 
justice based upon her actions in allegedly interfering with the ability of law 
enforcement officers and social workers to have access to her daughter, who had been 
sexually abused by defendant’s husband.  After careful consideration of defendant’s 
challenge to the Court of Appeals’ decision, we hold that the record contains sufficient 
evidence that defendant acted with deceit and intent to defraud to support her 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
conviction for felonious obstruction of justice and affirm the decision of the Court of 
Appeals. 
I. 
Factual Background 
A. Substantive Facts 
¶ 2 
 
Defendant is the mother of Jane and the wife of William Ditenhafer, who is 
Jane’s adopted father.1  After reaching middle school, Jane developed mental health 
and self-esteem-related problems and began to engage in self-harming-related 
activities.  According to Jane, defendant would become angry about her self-harming 
activities, claiming that she was acting as she was in order to get “attention” and to 
“fit in” and that Jane needed to stop what she was doing.  Jane claimed to be afraid 
of Mr. Ditenhafer because of his anger, his tendency to yell at her, and the spankings 
that he would administer for the purpose of disciplining her when she got in trouble.  
Upon discovering that Jane had sent suggestive photos of herself to a middle school 
boy, defendant and Mr. Ditenhafer became very angry with Jane and prohibited her 
from using electronic devices.  Around the same time, Mr. Ditenhafer, with 
defendant’s knowledge, began giving Jane full-body massages to “help [her] self-
esteem.” 
                                            
1 “Jane” and “John” are pseudonyms that are employed in order to protect the 
children’s identities and for ease of reading. 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 3 
 
After giving Jane a massage in 2013, Mr. Ditenhafer told Jane to come into the 
living room.  Once she had complied with that instruction, Mr. Ditenhafer informed 
Jane that he had discovered that she had sent additional suggestive photographs to 
the boy who had received the earlier images.  According to Jane, Mr. Ditenhafer 
claimed to have been “turned on” by these photos and told Jane that they “could either 
show [defendant] these photos” or she could “help him with his . . . boner.”  At that 
point, Jane started crying because, “if [defendant] saw these [images] again, she 
would call the police and I would get in trouble and I would get sent to jail,” and did 
as Mr. Ditenhafer had instructed her to do. 
¶ 4 
 
Subsequently, Mr. Ditenhafer began to pressure Jane to engage in sexual acts 
with him on a regular basis.  Over time, the abuse that Mr. Ditenhafer inflicted upon 
Jane became more serious, with such abusive episodes occurring “at least two times 
a week” when defendant was not in the home and progressing to the point that Mr. 
Ditenhafer had Jane engage in oral and vaginal sex acts with him.  Jane claimed that 
Mr. Ditenhafer told her not to tell anyone about the abuse or he would make her 
sound like a “crazy lying teenager.”  Jane refrained from telling defendant about the 
abuse that she was suffering at the hands of her adoptive father because she “didn’t 
think [defendant] would believe [her] and [defendant] would get angry at [her] for 
making up a lie.” 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 5 
 
In the spring of 2013, when Jane was in the ninth grade, she visited an aunt, 
who was the sister of her biological father, in Arizona.  During that visit, Jane 
informed her aunt that Mr. Ditenhafer had been sexually abusing her.  At that point, 
Jane and her aunt called defendant for the purpose of telling defendant about the 
abuse that Jane had experienced.  Defendant reacted to the information that Jane 
and her aunt had provided by becoming angry with Jane. 
¶ 6 
 
The aunt reported Jane’s accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer to law 
enforcement officers in Arizona.  The Arizona officers, in turn, contacted Detective 
Stan Doremus of the Wake County Sheriff’s Office, who initiated an investigation into 
Jane’s allegations.  Jane testified that, upon her return to North Carolina, defendant 
picked her up from the airport and told her that defendant did not believe Jane’s 
accusations; that Jane “needed to tell the truth and recant and not — and not lie 
anymore because it was going to tear apart the family and it was just going to end 
horribly”; and “that [Jane] didn’t need to do this.” 
¶ 7 
 
After learning of Jane’s accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer, Susan Dekarske, 
a social worker employed by the Child Protective Services Department of Wake 
County Human Services, interviewed defendant and Mr. Ditenhafer, both of whom 
denied Jane’s accusations.  Even so, Mr. Ditenhafter agreed to move out of the family 
home and to refrain from communicating with Jane during the pendency of the 
investigation. 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 8 
 
On 11 April 2013 Jane and defendant met with Detective Doremus and Ms. 
Dekarske at the family home.  After Ms. Dekarske asked to speak with her privately, 
Jane told Ms. Dekarske about several instances of sexual abuse that she had suffered 
at the hands of Mr. Ditenhafer, the fact that defendant urged Jane to recant her 
accusations against her adoptive father, and the fact that defendant had blamed Jane 
for destroying the family given that Mr. Ditenhafer “would get 15 years in prison, 
that [defendant] would also lose her job and that [John] would lose his dad, [and] they 
will lose the house.”  On 22 May 2013, Detective Doremus and Ms. Dekarske went to 
Jane’s school for the purpose of speaking with her privately in light of their 
understanding that defendant had been pressuring Jane to deny the truthfulness of 
her claims against Mr. Ditenhafer. 
¶ 9 
 
On 21 June 2013, Detective Doremus and Ms. Dekarske again met with 
defendant and Jane at the family home.  During the course of this meeting, defendant 
“had her hand on [Jane]’s thigh virtually the whole time” and “was answering the 
questions for [Jane].”  When Detective Doremus asked defendant whether she 
thought that  Jane’s accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer were true, defendant, who 
appeared to be shocked, responded by stating that “there is some truth to everything 
that [Jane] says but not all of it is true.”  In addition, defendant told Ms. Dekarske 
that she and Jane had been working to improve their ability to communicate with 
each other and that, while defendant believed a portion of what Jane had been saying, 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
she “did not believe it was” Mr. Ditenhafer who had abused Jane.  After Detective 
Doremus and Ms. Dekarske asked if they could speak with Jane privately, defendant 
responded that she was not comfortable with allowing Jane to be alone with Detective 
Doremus and declined to allow this request. 
¶ 10 
 
Detective Doremus and Ms. Dekarske met with Jane in private again on 11 
July 2013.  Detective Doremus recalled that, as soon as she entered the meeting room, 
Jane “became upset and said that the only reason that [defendant] let her talk with 
us alone is because [Jane was] supposed to recant” and that, upon making this 
statement, Jane “started to cry, [and] said she was not going to recant to us because 
she was telling the truth.”  As the meeting progressed, defendant sent text messages 
to Jane asking how the meeting was going, interrupted the meeting by entering the 
room in which the interview was taking place, and appeared angry when Detective 
Doremus informed her that Jane had not recanted her accusations against her 
adoptive father.  After Detective Doremus showed defendant a stack of sexually 
explicit e-mails that Mr. Ditenhafer had sent to Jane, defendant “looked at one page 
[of the e-mails], . . . flipped over to another page, and then left” with Jane in a 
“[h]urried, angry, rushed” manner. 
¶ 11 
 
As the investigation continued, defendant remained angry with Jane and 
continued to pressure her to recant.  At one point, defendant threatened to take Jane 
to a psychiatric hospital because Jane was “crazy.”  When asked about the nature of 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
the comments that defendant had made to her during this period of time, Jane 
testified that  
[defendant] would tell me I was manipulative and crazy 
and how I needed to tell the truth because I was tearing 
apart her family and destroying her family and that [Mr. 
Ditenhafer] was going to go to jail because of my lies and 
[my younger brother] was going to turn into a drug addict 
and drop out of high school and that I was, like, ruining, 
like, our family.  And this one time she also called me a 
manipulative bitch. 
 
In addition, defendant forbade Jane from visiting or talking with her Arizona 
relatives until she told them that she had falsely accused Mr. Ditenhafer of sexually 
abusing her.  Defendant also informed Jane that a family trip to Disneyland was “not 
going to happen because we’re going to lose our money and we’re going to lose our 
stuff and the animals” and that, on the other hand, if Jane recanted her allegations 
against Mr. Ditenhafer, the family could still go to Disneyland.  Finally, defendant 
told Jane that defendant might have breast cancer and that Jane needed to stop lying 
about the way in which her adoptive father had treated her because those lies were 
causing defendant to experience stress. 
¶ 12 
 
The conduct in which defendant engaged and Jane’s fear that she would lose 
her relationship with her younger brother finally caused Jane to recant her 
accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer in early August 2013.  On 5 August 2013, as Ms. 
Dekarske was preparing to leave after meeting with Jane and defendant at the family 
home, Jane ran outside and told Ms. Dekarske that she needed to tell her something.  
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
Then, in a manner that Ms. Dekarske described as “robotic” and “rehearsed,” Jane 
stated, “I just want to let you know I am recanting my story and I’m making it all 
up.”  As Ms. Dekarske looked back towards the house, she saw defendant watching 
from the window, so she decided to end the conversation and discuss the subject with 
Jane at a later time. 
¶ 13 
 
On 7 August 2013, Jane called Detective Doremus and told him, while 
defendant listened, that she wished to recant her accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer.  
In addition, Jane sent an e-mail to Detective Doremus for the purpose of telling him 
that she wished to recant, with defendant having “prompted [Jane] on what to write.” 
¶ 14 
 
On 29 August 2013, Detective Doremus went to Jane’s school for the purpose 
of meeting with Jane.  As she entered the room in which the meeting was to take 
place, Jane appeared to be nervous and told Detective Doremus that “I’m not 
supposed to talk to you.”  In response, Detective Doremus informed Jane that, while 
he believed that her allegations against her adoptive father were true, the Wake 
County Sheriff’s Office had ended its investigation and Mr. Ditenhafer would not be 
prosecuted for sexually abusing her. 
¶ 15 
 
Mr. Ditenhafer moved back into the family home around Thanksgiving and 
resumed his practice of sexually abusing Jane while defendant was absent from the 
house.  On 5 February 2014, defendant entered the bedroom that she shared with Mr. 
Ditenhafter and observed Mr. Ditenhafer engaging in vaginal intercourse with Jane.  
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
As Jane retreated into the adjacent bathroom, defendant angrily yelled “What’s going 
on?  What is this?”  While Jane stood crying in the bathroom, defendant asked Jane 
whether this was her “first time.”  Although Jane contemplated telling defendant that 
Mr. Ditenhafer had habitually abused her for the past several years, she told 
defendant instead that “my boyfriend and I have done it before.” 
¶ 16 
 
Later that day, defendant drove Jane to a McDonald’s at which defendant 
planned to retrieve a cell phone that Detective Doremus had examined during the 
investigation of Jane’s earlier accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer.  At that time, Jane 
told defendant that she had been telling the truth about Mr. Ditenhafer’s conduct and 
that he had continued to sexually abuse her.  In response, defendant stated that “I’m 
not sure if I believe you or not, but I just—I need to handle this first” before exiting 
the vehicle to obtain the cell phone from Detective Doremus.  Defendant did not report 
what she had witnessed to Detective Doremus and refused to allow Jane to speak 
with him.  In addition, defendant directed Jane to refrain from telling anyone else 
about what Mr. Ditenhafer had been doing to her “[b]ecause it was family business” 
and instructed Jane to help her discard the sheets and bedding upon which the abuse 
had occurred. 
¶ 17 
 
On 16 March 2014, defendant called Mr. Ditenhafer’s brother and told him that 
she had walked in upon an act of sexual abuse involving Mr. Ditenhafer and Jane.  
After receiving this information, which he found to be shocking, the  brother-in-law 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
continued to communicate with defendant over the course of the next several weeks 
for the purpose of helping defendant determine how she should protect herself and 
the children.  Although the brother-in-law initially thought that defendant would act 
in the children’s best interest, she informed him a few weeks after their initial 
conversation that she intended to refrain from “involv[ing] anyone else or the 
authorities because that would cost them more money and time” and because “[w]e 
don’t need anymore [sic] drama.”  At this point, the brother-in-law notified Child 
Protective Services about the sexual abuse that Mr. Ditenhafer had perpetrated upon 
Jane, resulting in the initiation of a new investigation by that agency. 
¶ 18 
 
On 29 April 2014, Robin Seymore, a Wake County Human Services employee, 
went to Jane’s school for the purpose of interviewing Jane.  Jane appeared anxious 
during her conversation with Ms. Seymore, denied that Mr. Ditenhafer had ever 
abused her, and called defendant to let her know that Ms. Seymore was there asking 
questions.  After the end of her conversation with Jane, Ms. Seymore went to John’s 
school in order to interview him.  Within five minutes after Ms. Seymore’s discussion 
with John had begun, defendant burst into the room in which the interview was being 
conducted, grabbed John, and told Ms. Seymore, “[a]bsolutely not.  You’re not going 
to talk to him.  You are not going to talk to him.  This is not happening.”  After making 
this series of statements, defendant told Ms. Seymore that “I have nothing to say to 
you” before leaving the interview room with John. 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 19 
 
On 30 April 2014, Ms. Seymore went to the family home for the purpose of 
interviewing defendant.  In spite of the fact that rain was pouring down and thunder 
could be heard, defendant told Ms. Seymore, “[y]ou’re not coming into the house” and 
insisted that they talk outside.  In the course of the ensuing conversation, defendant 
stated that Mr. Ditenhafer had stopped living in the family home during the 
preceding February while insisting that his departure “had nothing to do with the 
children or [Jane]” and suggested that his absence stemmed from the fact that “they 
had marital problems.”  In addition, defendant stated that her husband had decided 
to refrain from entering the house anymore in order to “avoid any more lies from 
[Jane].”  After Ms. Seymore left the family home following her conversation with 
defendant, she and her supervisor decided to seek the entry of an order taking Jane 
into the nonsecure custody of Wake County Human Services. 
¶ 20 
 
On 1 May 2014, Detective Doremus and other law enforcement officers came 
to the family home for the purpose of placing defendant under arrest and taking Jane 
into the custody of the Wake County Department of Human Services.  After their 
arrival, the officers observed defendant driving towards the residence.  Upon 
discovering that Detective Doremus and the other officers were present, defendant 
backed up, turned around, and began to drive away.  After the officers followed 
defendant and activated their emergency lights, defendant, who had Jane and John 
in the vehicle with her, pulled over on the side of the road, rolled up the windows, 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
locked the doors, and phoned her attorney while ignoring the officers’ requests that 
she exit from her vehicle.  As she sat in the car with the children, defendant told Jane, 
“[d]on’t say anything.  Don’t get out of the car . . .  If they try and take you away, 
[Jane], don’t go.  Refuse to go. . . .  Run down the street.  Just don’t go.”  Eventually, 
defendant complied with the officers’ requests and was placed under arrest. 
B. Procedural History 
¶ 21 
 
On 20 May 2014, the Wake County grand jury returned a bill of indictment 
charging defendant with one count of felonious obstruction of justice and one count of 
accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute parent.  On 9 September 
2014, the Wake County grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging 
defendant with being an accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute 
parent based upon an event that allegedly occurred on or about 5 February 2014.  On 
10 March 2015, the Wake County grand jury returned another superseding 
indictment charging defendant with two counts of felonious obstruction of justice, 
with one count alleging that defendant had obstructed justice by encouraging Jane to 
recant her allegations of sexual abuse against Mr. Ditenhafer on or about the period 
from 11 July 2013 to 1 September 2013 and with the second count alleging that 
defendant had obstructed justice by denying employees of the Wake County Sheriff’s 
Office and the Wake County Department of Human Services access to Jane on or 
about the period from 11 July 2013 to 1 September 2013. 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 22 
 
The charges against defendant came on for trial before the trial court and a 
jury at the 25 May 2015 criminal session of the Superior Court, Wake County.  At the 
close of the State’s evidence, defendant, who did not offer evidence on her own behalf, 
unsuccessfully moved to dismiss all three of the charges that had been lodged against 
her for insufficiency of the evidence and on the basis of “a variance between the crime 
alleged in the indictment and any crime for which the State’s evidence may have been 
sufficient to warrant submission to the jury[.]”  On 1 June 2015, the jury returned 
verdicts convicting defendant of felonious obstruction of justice by encouraging Jane 
to recant the allegations of sexual abuse that she had made against Mr. Ditenhafer, 
felonious obstruction of justice based upon her actions in denying employees of the 
Wake County Sheriff’s Office and the Wake County Department of Human Services 
access to Jane, and accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute parent.  
Based upon the jury’s verdicts, the trial court entered a judgment sentencing 
defendant to a term of six to seventeen months imprisonment based upon the first of 
her two convictions for felonious obstruction of justice, a judgment sentencing 
defendant to a consecutive term of six to seventeen months imprisonment based upon 
her second conviction for felonious obstruction of justice, and a judgment sentencing 
defendant to a consecutive term of thirteen to twenty-five months imprisonment 
based upon her conviction for accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
parent.  Defendant noted an appeal to the Court of Appeals from the trial court’s 
judgments. 
¶ 23 
 
In seeking relief from the trial court’s judgments before the Court of Appeals, 
defendant argued that the trial court had erred by denying her motions to dismiss all 
three of the charges that had been lodged against her for insufficiency of the evidence 
and by “failing to limit Defendant’s culpable conduct in its jury instruction for 
accessory after the fact to her failure to report abuse.”  State v. Ditenhafer, 258 N.C. 
App. 537, 547 (2018), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 373 N.C. 116 (2019).  In a divided 
decision, the Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s judgment relating to 
the first of defendant’s obstruction of justice convictions, which rested upon 
defendant’s conduct in encouraging Jane to recant her accusations against Mr. 
Ditenhafer, on the grounds that the record contained sufficient evidence to support 
defendant’s conviction.  Id. at 547–49.  On the other hand, the Court of Appeals 
overturned the trial court’s judgment relating to the second of defendant’s obstruction 
of justice convictions, which rested upon defendant’s conduct in precluding 
investigating officials from having access to Jane, on the grounds that the record did 
not contain sufficient evidence to support that conviction.  Id. at 550–51.  Finally, the 
Court of Appeals reversed the judgment that the trial court had entered based upon 
defendant’s conviction for accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute 
parent on the grounds the indictment that had been returned against defendant 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
“fail[e]d to allege any criminal conduct” and, instead, sought to hold defendant liable 
for an omission unrelated to the performance of any criminal act.  Id. at 551–53.  The 
State noted an appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeals’ decision relating to 
defendant’s conviction for accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute 
parent based upon a dissenting opinion by Judge Inman and this Court granted the 
State’s request for discretionary review with respect to the issue of whether the record 
contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction for the felonious 
obstruction of justice charge relating to defendant’s actions in precluding 
investigating officials from having access to Jane. 
¶ 24 
 
On 1 November 2019, this Court filed an opinion in which it affirmed the Court 
of Appeals’ decision to reverse defendant’s conviction for accessory after the fact to 
sexual activity by a substitute parent.  State v. Ditenhafer, 373 N.C. 116, 129 (2019).  
In addition, we overturned the Court of Appeals determination that the trial court 
had erred by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge that defendant had 
feloniously obstructed justice by denying investigating officials access to Jane for 
insufficiency of the evidence on the grounds that the record contained sufficient 
evidence “to persuade a rational juror that defendant denied officers and social 
workers access to Jane.”  Id. at 129 (cleaned up).  In support of this conclusion, we 
pointed to the presence of evidence tending to show that defendant had “talked over 
Jane during several interviews . . . in such a manner that Jane was precluded from 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
answering the questions,” that defendant had “interrupted an interview . . . by 
constantly sending Jane text messages and by abruptly removing Jane from the 
interview,” and that defendant “successfully induced Jane to refuse to speak with 
investigating officers and social workers” on multiple occasions.  Id. at 128.  As a 
result, we remanded this case to the Court of Appeals for the limited purpose of 
determining “whether there [was] sufficient evidence to enhance the charge of 
obstruction of justice for denying access to Jane from a misdemeanor to a felony under 
N.C.G.S. § 14-3(b).”  Id. at 129. 
¶ 25 
 
On remand from this Court, the Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient 
record evidence to support defendant’s conviction for felonious, as compared to 
misdemeanor, obstruction of justice on the grounds that defendant had precluded 
investigating officials from having access to Jane.  State v. Ditenhafer, 840 S.E.2d 
850, 855 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020) (holding that “the State [had] introduced evidence, 
taken in the light most favorable to it, that [d]efendant acted with deceit and the 
intent to defraud”).  In support of its determination that defendant’s actions had 
involved deceit and the existence of an intent to defraud, the Court of Appeals pointed 
to the fact that defendant “did not permit [Jane] to answer questions and answered 
for her in one interview, sent text messages and physically interrupted another 
interview, and sought to constantly influence [Jane]’s statements in those interviews 
by verbally abusing and punishing [Jane] for the statements she was making.”  Id. at 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
856.  In addition, the Court of Appeals noted the presence of evidence tending to show 
that defendant had “instructed [Jane] not to speak with investigators and directed 
investigators not to speak with [Jane] in private, ensuring that the daughter did not 
have the opportunity to give investigators truthful statements regarding the abuse” 
and that “[d]efendant [had] controlled the narrative by coaching [Jane] on what to 
say, listening on the line when [Jane] recanted her story to Detective Doremus, and 
prompting [Jane] on what to write in the [e-mail] in which [Jane] recanted her story.”  
Id. (cleaned up).  In dissenting from the majority’s decision, Judge Tyson stated that 
the presence of deceit and an intent to defraud “is not what the indictment alleges 
nor what the State’s evidence shows” and asserted that, on the contrary, the record 
evidence demonstrated that “[d]efendant presented her daughter and allowed access 
every time upon request,” with this fact tending to negate any contention that 
defendant acted with deceit and intent to defraud.  Id. at 858 (Tyson, J., dissenting).  
Defendant noted an appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeals’ decision based 
upon Judge Tyson’s dissent. 
II. 
Substantive Legal Analysis 
¶ 26 
 
In seeking to persuade us to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision, defendant 
argues that the record is devoid of substantial evidence tending to show that she acted 
with either deceit or the intent to defraud in the course of denying investigating 
officials access to Jane.  According to defendant, the record evidence uniformly 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
demonstrates that, during the time period set out in the relevant count of the 
indictment, she did not believe Jane’s accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer.  In 
addition, defendant contends that, in light of the fact that she did not believe Jane’s 
accusations against her husband, her attempt to induce Jane to recant her 
accusations against Mr. Ditenhafter amounted to an effort to persuade Jane to tell 
the truth “even if [she was] ultimately wrong about what the truth was.”  In support 
of this argument, defendant directs our attention to what she describes as the 
expressions of shock that defendant made when she interrupted Mr. Ditenhafer’s 
abuse of Jane in February 2014.  As a result, defendant maintains that her “actions 
during the relevant period were not intended to deceive; but, instead, were intended 
to protect [Mr. Ditenhafer] from what [defendant] incorrectly believed was a false 
accusation.” 
¶ 27 
 
In seeking to persuade us to refrain from disturbing the Court of Appeals’ 
decision, the State argues that “the Court of Appeals majority properly followed this 
Court’s directive and determined that the State presented sufficient evidence to 
support defendant’s felony obstruction of justice charge for denying access to the 
minor sexual abuse victim, Jane.”  After acknowledging defendant’s claim that “she 
believed Jane was abused by someone other than [Mr. Ditenhafer],” the State points 
out that defendant “inconsistently took many steps to intervene in and frustrate law 
enforcement and [social services]’ investigations into the sexual abuse.”  In essence, 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
the State argues that, “[h]ad defendant indeed committed her acts during the 
investigation as Jane’s concerned biological mother free of any intent to deceive or 
defraud, defendant would have cooperated with any investigation of Jane’s reported 
sexual abuse” while, instead, defendant “did everything other than cooperate with 
the investigation” in order “to maintain her belief of a happy life with [Mr. 
Ditenhafer].”  The State further argues that “[d]efendant’s intent to deceive and 
defraud is further revealed by her failure to report or even acknowledge the sexual 
abuse after directly witnessing it firsthand.”  As a result, the State argues that 
“[d]efendant’s many actions of pressuring Jane to recant during the indictment period 
and witnessing the sexual abuse firsthand after the indictment period both show 
defendant’s overall mental attitude towards Jane’s sexual abuse allegations and 
defendant’s selfish persistent desire to protect [her husband] and what she believed 
to be her good life” and permitted the jury to infer “her intent . . . from the 
circumstances and her actions throughout the investigation.” 
¶ 28 
 
In deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of 
the evidence, “the trial court need determine only whether there is substantial 
evidence of each essential element of the crime and that the defendant is the 
perpetrator.”  State v. Crockett, 368 N.C. 717, 720 (2016) (quoting State v. Hill, 365 
N.C. 273, 275 (2011)).  Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable 
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”  State v. Stone, 323 N.C. 447, 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
451 (1988) (quoting State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78–79 (1980)).  Put another way, 
substantial evidence is that which is “necessary to persuade a rational juror to accept 
a conclusion.”  Crockett, 368 N.C. at 720 (quoting Hill, 365 N.C. at 275).  In 
determining whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the 
submission of the issue of defendant’s guilt of a criminal offense to the jury, the trial 
court must consider the evidence “in the light most favorable to the State,” with the 
State being “entitled to every reasonable intendment and every reasonable inference 
to be drawn therefrom,” State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 99 (1980), and with 
“contradictions and discrepancies [being] for the jury to resolve” instead of 
“warrant[ing] dismissal,” State v. Winkler, 368 N.C. 572, 574 (2015) (quoting Powell, 
299 N.C. at 99).  For that reason, “[t]he evidence need only give rise to a reasonable 
inference of guilt in order for it to be properly submitted to the jury.”  Stone, 323 N.C. 
at 452 (citing State v. Jones, 303 N.C. 500, 504 (1981)).  In view of the fact that 
determining whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the 
defendant’s guilt of a criminal offense requires resolution of “a question of law,” 
Crockett, 368 N.C. at 720, this Court reviews challenges to the sufficiency of the 
evidence to support the jury’s decision to convict the defendant of committing a crime 
using a de novo standard of review, State v. Melton, 371 N.C. 750, 756 (2018) (citing 
State v. Chekanow, 370 N.C. 488, 492 (2018)). 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 29 
 
At the time that this case was initially before the Court, we held, among other 
things, that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the submission of the 
issue of defendant’s guilt of obstruction of justice based upon an allegation that 
defendant had denied investigating officials access to Jane to the jury.  Ditenhafer, 
373 N.C. at 128–29.  As a result, the sole issue before the Court of Appeals on remand 
was whether the record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s guilt of 
felonious, rather than misdemeanor, obstruction of justice on the basis of N.C.G.S. § 
14-3(b), id. at 129, which provides that, “[i]f a misdemeanor as to which no specific 
punishment is prescribed be infamous, done in secrecy and malice, or with deceit and 
intent to defraud, the offender shall, except where the offense is a conspiracy to 
commit a misdemeanor, be guilty of a Class H felony,” N.C.G.S. § 14-3(b) (2019).  As 
the Court of Appeals has correctly held, a defendant commits felonious, as compared 
to misdemeanor, obstruction of justice in the event that he or she “(1) unlawfully and 
willfully (2) obstruct[s] justice by providing false statements to law enforcement 
officers investigating [a crime] (3) with deceit and intent to defraud.”  State v. Cousin, 
233 N.C. App. 523, 531 (2014).  After considering the evidence in the light most 
favorable to the State, as we are required to do in accordance with the applicable 
standard of review, we hold that the record contains sufficient evidence to support a 
jury determination that defendant acted with deceit and an intent to defraud when 
she denied investigating officials access to Jane. 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 30 
 
At trial, the State asserted that defendant sought to deprive investigating 
officials of meaningful access to Jane in order to preclude her from accusing Mr. 
Ditenhafer of sexually abusing her.  In support of this assertion, the State elicited 
evidence concerning numerous incidents that occurred during the time period 
specified in the relevant indictment count.  For example, the State presented evidence 
that defendant answered questions for Jane during meetings with investigators in 
order to preclude Jane from answering the questions that were posed to her in a 
truthful manner.  In addition, defendant told investigating officials that they were 
not allowed to speak with Jane privately and instructed Jane to recant the truthful 
accusations that she had made against Mr. Ditenhafer.  On one occasion, defendant 
interrupted a private meeting between Jane and the investigating officials and 
removed Jane from the meeting.  In the same vein, the record contains evidence 
tending to show that defendant drafted an e-mail which appeared to state that Jane’s 
accusations against defendant were false and required Jane to send that e-mail to 
investigating officials.  As a result, the record contains evidence tending to show that, 
in addition to simply precluding investigating officials from having access to Jane, 
defendant actively encouraged Jane to make what everyone now acknowledges to 
have been false statements exonerating Mr. Ditenhafer from criminal liability for his 
sexual abuse of Jane. 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 31 
 
Admittedly, the mere existence of evidence tending to show the nature of 
defendant’s obstructive activities does not suffice to show that she acted with the 
deceit and intent to defraud necessary to support her conviction for felonious, as 
compared to misdemeanor, obstruction of justice.  In addition to containing evidence 
recounting defendant’s obstructive activities, the record is also replete with evidence 
tending to suggest that, instead of being engaged in a disinterested search for the 
truth, defendant knew that Jane’s accusations against her husband were likely to be 
true and had motives other than a desire for truthfulness in seeking to interfere with 
the investigation into the validity of Jane’s accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer.  For 
example, during an early stage in the investigation, defendant acknowledged to 
investigating officials that Jane had probably been abused and that some, but not all, 
of Jane’s accusations were truthful.  In light of this admission, the jury could 
reasonably have concluded that defendant did, in fact, know that something had 
happened to Jane and that her accusations rested upon something more than a mere 
fabrication.  Similarly, defendant’s knowledge that Mr. Ditenhafer had begun giving 
full-body massages to Jane sufficed to put defendant on notice that the nature of the 
interactions between Jane and her adoptive father, at an absolute minimum, posed a 
risk of harm to Jane.  In addition, defendant continued her obstructive conduct after 
being shown inappropriate e-mails that Mr. Ditenhafer had sent to Jane.  Finally, 
defendant’s repeated statements that Jane’s accusations risked the destruction of the 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
existing family structure and harm to other members of the family provided ample 
support for a jury finding that defendant’s conduct was motivated by a desire to 
preserve the existing family structure, from which she clearly believed that she 
derived benefits, rather than an attempt to dissuade Jane from making false 
accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer. 
¶ 32 
 
The inference that defendant was acting with deceit and an intent to defraud 
that the jury was entitled to draw based upon the evidence of defendant’s conduct 
during the period of time specified in the relevant count of the indictment is 
substantially bolstered by the evidence concerning defendant’s conduct in the 
aftermath of her discovery in September 2014 that Mr. Ditenhafer was, in fact, 
sexually abusing Jane.2  In spite of the fact that she now had conclusive proof that 
Jane’s accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer were true, defendant continued to attempt 
to protect her husband from the consequences of his actions.  For example, the record 
reflects that defendant appeared to be more concerned about issues relating to Jane’s 
chastity than about the impact of Mr. Ditenhafer’s abusive conduct upon her 
daughter.  In addition, defendant destroyed the bedding upon which the sexual abuse 
had occurred.  On the same day upon which defendant obtained confirmation that 
                                            
2 Assuming, without deciding, that evidence concerning defendant’s conduct outside 
the time period specified in the relevant count of the indictment is not admissible as 
substantive evidence of defendant’s guilt of obstruction of justice, we see no reason why that 
conduct is not relevant to the issue of the intent with which defendant acted when she 
obstructed investigating officials’ access to Jane during the relevant time period. 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
Jane’s accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer were true, defendant failed to report the 
adoptive father’s conduct to Detective Doremus during a meeting held for the purpose 
of retrieving Jane’s cell phone and refused to allow Jane to speak with Detective 
Doremus.  After acknowledging the abuse that Mr. Ditenhafer had inflicted upon 
Jane, defendant told her brother-in-law that she had talked to a lawyer and a 
therapist and that both of them had advised her to refrain from involving anyone else 
because “[w]e don’t need anymore [sic] drama” and because the making of such a 
report would “cost them more money and time.”  Finally, when law enforcement 
officers came to the family home for the purpose of arresting defendant and taking 
Jane into nonsecure custody, defendant attempted to escape while instructing Jane 
to “[r]efuse to go” with the officers and to “[r]un down the street” instead.  As a result, 
the extensive evidence of defendant’s efforts to protect Mr. Ditenhafer from the 
consequences of his actions after her discovery that Jane’s accusations of sexual abuse 
were true coupled with the statements that defendant made to the brother-in-law 
provides substantial additional support for the State’s contention that, rather than 
simply trying to ensure that investigating officials were not misled by Jane’s false 
accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer, defendant acted with deceit and an intent to 
defraud. 
¶ 33 
 
As a result, for all of these reasons, we hold that the record evidence, when 
taken in the light most favorable to the State, provides more than sufficient support 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
for a jury finding that defendant precluded investigating officials from having access 
to Jane with deceit and the intent to defraud.  Although defendant does, of course, 
take a contrary position and although the record does not contain any evidence 
tending to show that defendant actually admitted that she had obstructed the State’s 
attempts to investigate Jane’s accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer for nefarious 
reasons, the absence of such direct evidence concerning defendant’s mental state does 
not, of course, preclude the State from attempting to establish defendant’s guilt 
through the use of inferences derived from circumstantial evidence.  On the contrary, 
the presence of evidence tending to show defendant’s persistent refusal to 
acknowledge the truthfulness of Jane’s accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer in the face 
of Jane’s assertions that she was telling the truth, defendant’s knowledge of what 
appear to have been inappropriate interactions between Mr. Ditenhafer and Jane, 
defendant’s refusal to credit or even review evidence tending to bolster the credibility 
of Jane’s accusations against Mr. Ditenhafer, and the fact that defendant appears to 
have been acting on the basis of motives other than a disinterested search for truth 
during the offense date range specified in the relevant count of the indictment 
suffices, standing alone, to support a reasonable inference that defendant acted with 
deceit and an intent to defraud rather than in the course of a permissible attempt to 
exercise her constitutional rights as Jane’s parent.  And, when one considers the 
record evidence concerning defendant’s conduct after discovering Mr. Ditenhafer in 
STATE V. DITENHAFER 
2021-NCSC-19 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
the very act of abusing Jane, the evidence that defendant precluded investigating 
officials from having access to Jane deceitfully and with an intent to defraud seems 
even more compelling.  Thus, for all of these reasons, we have no hesitation in 
concluding that the Court of Appeals did not err by upholding defendant’s conviction 
for felonious obstruction of justice based upon defendant’s interference with 
investigating officials’ access to Jane. 
III. 
Conclusion  
¶ 34 
 
A careful review of the evidence presented for the jury’s consideration 
persuades us that the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, 
contains substantial evidence tending to show that defendant had acted with deceit 
and an intent to defraud at the time that she obstructed justice by denying officers of 
the Wake County Sheriff’s Office and Wake County Department of Human Services 
employees access to Jane during their investigation of Jane’s allegations against Mr. 
Ditenhafer.  As a result, the Court of Appeals’ decision to find no error in the trial 
court’s judgment based upon defendant’s conviction for felonious obstruction of justice 
arising from the denial of access to Jane is affirmed. 
AFFIRMED.