IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

2022-NCCOA-35

No. COA20-721

Filed 18 January 2022

Orange County, Nos. 18 CRS 65–71, 50881–93

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

DANIEL ISIAH CREW, JR.

Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 25 September 2019 by Judge 

Carl R. Fox in Orange County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 

October 2021.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Brenda 

Menard, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Sterling 

Rozear, for defendant.

DIETZ, Judge.

¶ 1 Defendant Daniel Crew appeals his convictions for dogfighting, felony cruelty 

to animals, misdemeanor cruelty to animals, and restraining dogs in a cruel manner.

Crew also challenges the trial court’s restitution orders totaling $70,000, which the 

trial court immediately converted to civil judgments.

¶ 2 As explained below, the State presented sufficient evidence to support the 

dogfighting charges, and Crew’s unpreserved challenge to a leading question posed 
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

by the prosecutor at trial is meritless. We therefore find no error in Crew’s criminal 

convictions. We also find no error in the trial court’s restitution orders, which were 

supported by sufficient evidence at trial. But we hold that the trial court lacked the 

authority to immediately convert those restitution orders into civil judgments. We 

therefore vacate those civil judgments.

Facts and Procedural History

¶ 3 Defendant Daniel Crew ran Crew Kennels on property owned by his parents 

in Rougemont. Most of the dogs he kept in his kennel were pit bulls, which he bred 

and sold primarily for hunting and pulling competitions. 

¶ 4 In 2018, law enforcement officers arrived at the property and found 30 pit

bulls. The officers contacted Orange County Animal Services, who arrived and took 

over the investigation. Animal Control Manager Irene Phipps went to the property

during the search. She found some of the dogs chained and others in “above ground 

box housing.” Phipps was concerned because some of the dogs had injuries, which 

were “similar to injuries a dog would sustain through dogfighting.” Some of the dogs 

had what appeared to be topical medication applied to the skin to attempt to heal the 

wounds. Phipps testified that she saw twenty dogs with no water and ten dogs with 

inadequate water. Phipps also testified that some of the animals appeared unhealthy 

and underweight. 

¶ 5 Officers also found dogfighting publications and “keep notes” for preparing a 
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

dog for a fight at the property. Officers took five dogs that appeared to need 

immediate care to a veterinary facility and the rest to the Orange County Animal 

Services shelter. 

¶ 6 The equipment found at the site included a device called a “Jenny,” to which a 

dog is harnessed, a spring pole, two flirt poles, heavy chains, and a treadmill with 

two weighted dog collars. These items are used for exercise and conditioning to build 

up a dog’s strength. The site also contained areas that appeared to be staging and 

dogfighting pit areas and weight scales used in organized dogfighting operations to 

weigh dogs before a fight.

¶ 7 Many of the dogs had injuries or significant scarring from past wounds. A 

number of dogs ultimately were euthanized. 

¶ 8 The State charged Crew with fifteen counts of engaging in dogfighting, one 

count of allowing property to be used for dogfighting, five counts of felony cruelty to 

animals, twenty-five counts of misdemeanor cruelty to animals, and sixteen counts of 

restraining dogs in a cruel manner. 

¶ 9 Dr. Clarissa Noureddine conducted two forensic examinations of the dogs. Dr. 

Noureddine is the chief veterinarian at the Guilford County Animal Shelter. She was 

admitted as an expert in forensic veterinary medicine. Dr. Noureddine reviewed 

photos and evidence found on site, exam findings from the emergency veterinary 

hospital and its veterinarian, and results of testing performed on the dogs. 
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

¶ 10 At trial, Dr. Noureddine described the secluded environment in which the dogs 

were kept, and the items located at the site, as consistent with those found at 

dogfighting operations. Dr. Noureddine also testified that the injuries the dogs 

sustained indicated that the animals were engaged in trained, organized fighting, not 

spontaneous fighting. 

¶ 11 Andi Morgan, Assistant Director of Orange County Animal Services, testified 

that the agency incurred $92,500 in costs to house the seized dogs and provide 

necessary medical care and other services. According to Morgan, the cost to house the 

dogs alone was “a little over 80,000.”

¶ 12 Crew moved to dismiss the dogfighting charges. The trial court granted the 

motion to dismiss the charge of allowing property to be used for dogfighting. The trial 

court denied the motion to dismiss as to the other dogfighting charges. 

¶ 13 The jury found Crew guilty of eleven counts of dogfighting, three counts of 

felony cruelty to animals, fourteen counts of misdemeanor cruelty to animals, and 

two counts of restraining dogs in a cruel manner. The trial court imposed six 

consecutive active sentences of 10 to 21 months each along with several suspended 

sentences. The trial court also ordered Crew to pay Orange County Animal Services 

$10,000 in seven separate restitution orders that were then entered as civil 

judgments, totaling $70,000 in restitution. 

¶ 14 Crew timely appealed the criminal judgments. He later petitioned for a writ of 
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

certiorari seeking review of the restitution awards entered as civil judgments. 

Because, as explained below, Crew’s challenge to those civil judgments has merit, in 

our discretion, we allow the petition and issue of a writ of certiorari to review that 

issue. N.C. R. App. P. 21.

Analysis

I. Denial of motion to dismiss

¶ 15 Crew first argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the 

dogfighting charges. He contends that the State’s evidence was insufficient to show

that he intended to use the dogs for fighting purposes. 

¶ 16 “This Court reviews the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo.”

State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007). When a criminal 

defendant moves to dismiss, “the trial court is to determine whether there is

substantial evidence (a) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser 

offense included therein, and (b) of defendant's being the perpetrator of the offense.”

State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 65–66, 296 S.E.2d 649, 651 (1982). “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, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980). “In 

making its determination, the trial court must consider all evidence admitted, 

whether competent or incompetent, in the light most favorable to the State, giving 

the State the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving any contradictions 
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

in its favor.” State v. Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 223 (1994).

¶ 17 The crime of possession of a dog for the purpose of dogfighting is a specific 

intent crime; it applies to a person “who owns, possesses, or trains a dog with the 

intent that the dog be used in an exhibition featuring the baiting of that dog or the 

fighting of that dog with another dog or with another animal.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-

362.2(b). Crew argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence of his intent 

to commit that crime.

¶ 18 We reject this argument. The State presented evidence that the property at 

which they found the dogs contained equipment designed to increase the dogs’ 

strength and endurance. They also recovered medication commonly used in 

dogfighting operations that could be used for wound care without involving a

veterinarian. The property also contained an area that appeared to be a dogfighting 

pit or training area. Finally, the officers recovered dogfighting publications and “keep 

notes” for preparing a dog to fight. 

¶ 19 In addition, the State presented expert testimony that many of the dogs had 

scarring and parasite infections consistent with dogs who were trained and used for 

dogfighting. 

¶ 20 This evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find that Crew intended 

to engage in dogfighting. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying the motion 

to dismiss.
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

II. The State’s leading question during direct examination

¶ 21 Crew next argues that the trial court plainly erred by allowing the prosecutor 

to ask a leading question to Dr. Noureddine, the expert who testified about the use of 

the dogs for fighting purposes.

¶ 22 As an initial matter, Crew acknowledges that the trial court’s decision to 

permit this leading question was a discretionary one and that our Supreme Court and 

this Court repeatedly have held that plain error review does not apply to 

discretionary decisions. See, e.g., State v. Steen, 352 N.C. 227, 256, 536 S.E.2d 1, 18 

(2000) (“[T]his Court has not applied the plain error rule to issues which fall within 

the realm of the trial court’s discretion, and we decline to do so now.”); State v. Smith, 

194 N.C. App. 120, 126–27, 669 S.E.2d 8, 13 (2008) (“Our Supreme Court has held, 

however, that discretionary decisions by the trial court are not subject to plain error 

review.”). Crew thus asks this Court to invoke Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure to excuse his failure to preserve this issue for appellate review. We reject 

this request. We can invoke Rule 2 only “in exceptional circumstances” that present 

a manifest injustice or issues of importance in the public interest. State v. Ricks, 378 

N.C. 737, 2021-NCSC-116, ¶ 5. This case does not remotely approach that high bar. 

¶ 23 Indeed, even if we were to apply the plain error standard—which, itself, is an 

exceedingly high standard of review—we could not find any error, much less any plain 

error. Leading questions generally are not permitted during direct examination. N.C.
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 611(c). But trial courts have discretion to permit a leading 

question that elicits “testimony already received into evidence without objection.” 

State v. Stafford, 150 N.C. App. 566, 569, 564 S.E.2d 60, 62 (2002). Here, the 

prosecutor posed the following non-leading questions to Dr. Noureddine concerning 

the use of the dogs for dogfighting: 

Q. Dr. Noureddine, based on your observations and 

examinations in this case, did you form an opinion as to 

whether these dogs had been or were intended to be used 

in organized dogfighting?

A. Yes. 

Q. And what was that opinion? 

A. It’s my opinion that the 30 dogs in this case that we have 

described either have been, are, or are intended to be used 

in organized dogfighting. 

After Dr. Noureddine further described the basis for her opinion, the prosecutor then 

asked the leading question that Crew challenges on appeal:

Q. But it – it’s your opinion that all of them were, in your 

opinion, being kept for that purpose? 

A. Yes.

¶ 24 The trial court’s decision to permit this question was well within its sound 

discretion and not error, certainly not plain error, and not even remotely close to the 

sort of exceptional circumstances that would justify the use of Rule 2. We therefore 

reject Crew’s argument.
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

III. Restitution

¶ 25 Finally, Crew challenges the trial court’s seven restitution orders, which the 

court converted into seven civil judgments. Those restitution orders require Crew to 

pay Orange County Animal Services a total of $70,000 in restitution.

¶ 26 This Court reviews “de novo whether the restitution order was supported by 

evidence at trial or sentencing.” State v. Hardy, 242 N.C. App. 146, 159, 774 S.E.2d 

410, 419 (2015). 

¶ 27 Crew first argues that, although the State charged him with offenses related 

to thirty dogs, he was convicted only of offenses related to seventeen of those dogs. 

Thus, he argues, the trial court’s restitution orders impermissibly impose restitution 

based on offenses for which he was not convicted, because they were based on 

evidence of costs associated with all thirty of the seized animals.

¶ 28 We reject this argument. The trial court may impose restitution for “any 

injuries or damages arising directly and proximately out of the offense committed by 

the defendant.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.34(c). Crew’s acts of engaging in 

dogfighting, cruelty to animals, and restraining dogs in a cruel manner led directly 

to the need to remove all thirty dogs from his possession and place them with animal 

services. Employees of Orange County Animal Services testified that the shelter 

spent $92,500 on care and housing of those dogs, including $80,000 solely for housing 

of the animals. This evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s seven separate 
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

restitution orders, amounting to $70,000 in total restitution.

¶ 29 Crew next argues that the trial court failed to adequately consider his ability 

to pay the restitution judgments. Again, we disagree. “Whether the trial court 

properly considered a defendant’s ability to pay when awarding restitution is 

reviewed by this Court for abuse of discretion.” State v. Hillard, 258 N.C. App. 94, 98, 

811 S.E.2d 702, 705 (2018). “An abuse of discretion results when the court’s ruling is 

manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the 

result of a reasoned decision.” State v. Triplett, 368 N.C. 172, 178, 775 S.E.2d 805, 

809 (2015).

¶ 30 Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.36(a), a trial court determining the amount 

of restitution must consider factors pertaining “to the defendant’s ability to make 

restitution.” These factors include, but are not limited to, the defendant’s resources 

“including all real and personal property owned by the defendant and the income 

derived from the property” and “the defendant’s ability to earn.” Id. The trial court 

need not make “findings of fact or conclusions of law on these matters.” Id.

¶ 31 Here, there was evidence concerning Crew’s ability to pay, including evidence 

that the kennel Crew operated “generate[s] good money”; that a “good puppy” could 

sell for a thousand dollars; and that the kennel generated $15,927 of income in 2017. 

There also was evidence that, although Crew has four minor dependents, he lives 

with his fiancée who has a job outside the kennel. Based on this evidence, the trial 
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

court’s determination that Crew had the ability to pay the restitution award was 

within the court’s sound discretion and certainly not manifestly arbitrary or outside 

the realm of reason.

¶ 32 Crew responds that, although this evidence might support the trial court’s 

discretionary decision concerning ability to pay, the court never expressly stated that 

it considered this evidence. But the law does not require the court to expressly make 

this sort of statement. To be sure, if there was evidence indicating that the court did 

not consider this evidence of ability to pay, or misapprehended the requirement to 

consider it, we could find an abuse of discretion. But absent that indication, we 

presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it. See Hillard, 258 N.C. App.

at 98, 811 S.E.2d at 705; State v. Tate, 187 N.C. App. 593, 597–99, 653 S.E.2d 892,

896–97 (2007) (holding that restitution orders will be overturned only when the trial 

court “did not consider any evidence of defendant’s financial condition”) (emphasis in 

original). We thus reject Crew’s argument.

¶ 33 Finally, Crew argues that the trial court erred by immediately converting the 

restitution awards into civil judgments. The restitution statutes distinguish between 

two categories of offenses: (1) those for which the victim is entitled to restitution 

under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (VRA), and (2) those not covered by the VRA.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.34(b), (c). For VRA offenses falling in the first category, 

the restitution statutes provide a procedure through which a trial court may convert 
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

the restitution award into a civil judgment and a corresponding procedure to enforce 

that civil judgment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.38. The restitution statutes do not 

expressly address whether a restitution award for an offense in the second category—

offenses not covered by the VRA—can be converted into a civil judgment.

¶ 34 In a series of unpublished cases, this Court reasoned that restitution awards 

for some offenses in this second category can be converted to civil judgments based 

on other, separate statutory authority. For example, in State v. Batchelor, the Court 

held that although “the offense for which [the defendant] was convicted, larceny, is 

not one to which the VRA applies,” a separate statute, “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-8 grants 

the trial court authority to award restitution where a defendant is convicted of 

stealing goods, and to ‘make all such orders and issue such writs of restitution or 

otherwise as may be necessary for that purpose.’” 267 N.C. App. 691, 833 S.E.2d 255, 

2019 WL 4803703, at *2 (2019) (unpublished). The Court then held that “given the 

trial court’s broad authorization under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-8 to ‘make all such orders 

and issue such writs of restitution or otherwise as may be necessary,’ it had the 

authority to enforce, ab initio, restitution by civil judgment.” Id.

¶ 35 We are persuaded by the reasoning of Batchelor, but unable to extend it to 

justify the civil judgments in this case. Unlike Batchelor, a larceny case subject to 

N.C. Gen. Stat § 15-8, there is no corresponding statute authorizing the trial court to 

“make all such orders and issue such writs” as are necessary to enforce the restitution 
STATE V. CREW

2022-NCCOA-35

Opinion of the Court

awards in this case—which provide restitution to an animal services agency in a 

criminal case involving charges of dogfighting and animal cruelty.

¶ 36 The State contends that the trial court does not need any separate statutory 

authority because courts have the “inherent authority” to convert any restitution 

award to a civil judgment. But we agree with Crew that, if this were so, it would 

render the language in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.38 superfluous, counter to longstanding principles of statutory construction. State v. Morgan, 372 N.C. 609, 614, 831 

S.E.2d 254, 258 (2019). Moreover, the General Statutes contain a separate provision 

that can compel a defendant charged with the offenses at issue in this case to pay the 

reasonable expenses of the animal shelter that took custody of the dogs. N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 19A-70. There is no indication in the record that the animal services agency 

availed itself of this statutory provision. Because there is no statutory provision 

authorizing the immediate entry of civil judgments for the restitution in this case, we 

vacate those civil judgments. 

Conclusion

¶ 37 For the reasons explained above, we find no error in the trial court’s criminal 

judgments but vacate the civil judgments concerning the awards of restitution.

NO ERROR IN PART; VACATED IN PART.

Judges ARROWOOD and HAMPSON concur.