IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA22-563

Filed 07 March 2023

New Hanover County, Nos. 19 CRS 5130-32, 19 CRS 57261-62

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

RICHARD CRAIG WILKINSON, Defendant.

Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 3 March 2022 by Judge Joshua 

W. Wiley, Jr., in New Hanover County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals

11 January 2023.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Olga E. 

Vysotskaya de Brito, for the State.

Drew Nelson for Defendant.

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Defendant Richard Craig Wilkinson appeals from a judgment entered after a 

jury found him guilty of soliciting a child by computer. Defendant argues the trial 

court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the State presented insufficient 

evidence to support the charge. We find no error.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

During the summer of 2019, Defendant, who was fifty-nine years old, began 
STATE V. WILKINSON

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

communicating with Danielle1, a fifteen-year-old, online. Defendant, although aware 

of Danielle’s age, began messaging her about engaging in sexual activity. On at least 

four separate occasions, Danielle went to Defendant’s home where he served her 

alcohol and gave her around $300 in cash along with other gifts. Upon Danielle’s first 

visit to Defendant’s home, Defendant asked Danielle to take off her clothing and sit 

on his lap wearing only a bikini. Danielle complied with Defendant’s requests. On 

other occasions, when Danielle visited Defendant’s home, Defendant reached under 

her dress, groped her, and, on at least one occasion, kissed her. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation received an anonymous tip regarding 

Defendant’s inappropriate relationship with Danielle and began an investigation into 

the matter. On 29 August 2019, with the FBI and her father present, Danielle began 

a Snapchat conversation with Defendant. During this conversation, Defendant

stated he “thought about [Danielle] every minute [o]f every day and of . . . [h]ow good 

[her] touch feels” and how he “so want[s] [his] hand right there [f]eeling how smooth.” 

Defendant also messaged Danielle saying: “And to have you one day completely butt 

nekkid laying across my lap” and “I just want my hands in that hair . . . [p]ulling it 

back[,] [b]iting that neck[,] [w]atching your back arch.” Further, in planning their 

next in-person encounter, Defendant told Danielle to come see him whenever she 

could get out of the house and even offered to get her a ride stating, “let me know if 

1 We use a pseudonym to protect the identity of the minor child. N.C. R. App. P. 42(b).
STATE V. WILKINSON

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

ya need a uber ;) [.]” Danielle asked Defendant if he was working the following day, 

30 August 2018, and Defendant replied: “Yeah I always work [b]ut can get away 

anytime you can.” When Danielle responded that she would “try to find a ride and 

leave school early[,]” Defendant sent a heart emoji and said: “I’d love it. 5 minutes or 

hours and I’ll be stoked either way[.]” 

On 30 August 2019, Defendant was arrested and charged with one count of 

first-degree statutory sex offense, one count of placing a child in sexual servitude, five 

counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, three counts of providing alcohol to a 

minor, one count of soliciting a child by computer, and one count of contributing to 

the delinquency of a minor—all stemming from his relationship with Danielle. On 

31 August 2019, Danielle turned sixteen. 

On 2 December 2019, a grand jury indicted Defendant on all charges. During 

trial, at the close of the State’s evidence, Defendant made a motion to dismiss the 

charge of soliciting a child by computer, which was denied. At the close of all 

evidence, Defendant renewed his motion to dismiss which was again denied. The 

trial court dismissed one count of first-degree statutory sex offense, one count of 

placing a child in sexual servitude, and two counts of taking indecent liberties with a 

child. Defendant was found not guilty on one count of taking indecent liberties with 

a child. However, the jury found Defendant guilty on two counts of taking indecent 

liberties with a child, three counts of providing alcohol to a minor, one count of 

contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and one count of soliciting a child by 
STATE V. WILKINSON

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

computer.

Defendant timely appeals challenging only the sufficiency of the State’s 

evidence regarding the charge of soliciting a child by computer. 

II. Analysis

Defendant argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support 

the charge of soliciting a child by computer. We disagree.

This Court reviews the denial of a motion to dismiss a criminal charge for 

insufficient evidence de novo. State v. Chekanow, 370 N.C. 488, 492, 809 S.E.2d 546, 

550 (2018). “In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, we must view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of all 

reasonable inferences.” State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455

(2000). Further, we must determine, “whether there is substantial evidence (1) of 

each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, 

and (2) of [the] defendant’s being the perpetrator of such offense.” Id. at 378, 526 

S.E.2d at 455 (citations omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as 

a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Smith, 

300 N.C. 71, 78–79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980).

Defendant specifically contends the State’s evidence was insufficient, under 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3(a), to prove he intended to commit an unlawful sex act 

with a child younger than sixteen because the 29 August 2019 Snapchat messages 

with Danielle concerned actions Defendant aspired to take at an undefined future 
STATE V. WILKINSON

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

date as there was “no sort of plan or request to meet [Danielle] in person” prior to her 

sixteenth birthday.

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3(a),

A [defendant] is guilty of solicitation of a child by a 

computer if the [defendant] is 16 years of age or older and 

the [defendant] knowingly, with the intent to commit an 

unlawful sex act, entices, advises, coerces, orders, or 

commands, by means of a computer or any other device 

capable of electronic data storage or transmission, a child 

who is less than 16 years of age and at least five years 

younger than the defendant, . . . to meet with the 

defendant . . . for the purpose of committing an unlawful 

sex act.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.3(a) (2021). It is well established that intent is the state of 

mind that exists at the time the defendant commits an offense. State v. Accor, 277 

N.C. 65, 73, 175 S.E.2d 583, 589 (1970) (internal marks and citations omitted); see 

also State v. Keller, 374 N.C. 637, 648, 843 S.E.2d 58, 66 (2020). Further, intent “may 

be read from a defendant’s acts, conduct, and inferences fairly deducible from all the 

circumstances.” Accor, 277 N.C. at 73, 175 S.E.2d at 589 (“If intent required definite 

and substantive proof, it would be almost impossible to convict, absent facts 

disclosing a culmination of the intent.”).

Here, the State offered testimony from Danielle who stated Defendant knew 

she was fifteen years old but continued to communicate with her both online and in 

person. Danielle also testified at trial that, on multiple occasions, she visited 

Defendant at his home where he groped her beneath her dress, kissed her, and asked 
STATE V. WILKINSON

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

her to take her clothes off so he could see her bathing suit. Additionally, the State 

offered evidence of Defendant’s 29 August 2019 Snapchat exchange with Danielle in 

which Defendant sent Danielle explicit messages describing how he thought of her 

every day and would have her “butt nekkid laying across [his] lap.” Further, within 

that exchange, Danielle told Defendant she was not sure she would be able to meet 

him before her sixteenth birthday, yet Defendant continued to entice Danielle to meet 

him on 30 August 2019 saying he could “get away anytime” Danielle was available 

and would love to see her whether it be for five minutes or hours. 

From this evidence—Defendant’s previous conduct and the Snapchat 

conversation—it can be inferred, in the light most favorable to the State, Defendant 

intended to commit a sex act with Danielle despite the lack of a definite plan to meet 

up before her sixteenth birthday. Not only had Defendant previously met with

Danielle, but the conversation indicated his intent to meet with her again, which a 

reasonable mind could conclude was intended to be on 30 August 2019, while she was 

still fifteen years old. Because Defendant’s intent to meet with Danielle before her 

birthday can be inferred from his acts and conduct during past encounters as well as 

from the 29 August 2019 Snapchat conversation, the State introduced sufficient 

evidence of each essential element of the offense charged under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-

202.3(a)—solicitation of a child by a computer. 

III. Conclusion

We hold the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss 
STATE V. WILKINSON

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

the charge of soliciting a child by a computer.

NO ERROR.

Judges MURPHY and CARPENTER concur.