Court Opinion

ID: 9951798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 12:07:00.060875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:51.720888
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                   No. COA23-443

                                Filed 19 March 2024

Onslow County, No. 21 CRS 54283

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

             v.

NATHAN JOSEPH TEMPLETON

      Appeal by Defendant from Judgment entered 15 September 2022 by Judge G.

Frank Jones in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7

February 2024.

      Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Jodi L.
      Regina, for the State.

      Castle, Peterson & Naylor, P.C., by Paul Y.K. Castle, for Defendant-Appellant.

      HAMPSON, Judge.

                      Factual and Procedural Background

      Nathan Joseph Templeton (Defendant) appeals from a Judgment entered

pursuant to jury verdicts finding him guilty of felony Fleeing to Elude Arrest with a

Motor Vehicle and Speeding in Excess of Eighty Miles Per Hour. The Record before

us, including evidence presented at trial, tends to show the following:

      On 5 September 2021 at approximately 3:43 a.m., Sergeant Keith Whaley with

the Onslow County Sheriff's Office saw a motorcycle travelling at a “high rate of
                               STATE V. TEMPLETON

                                 Opinion of the Court

speed” while parked in an unmarked patrol car off Highway 258. Using a radar,

Sergeant Whaley clocked Defendant’s speed at 114 miles per hour. Sergeant Whaley

activated his blue lights and siren and began to pursue Defendant.

      Defendant made several turns before making a U-turn in a yard and passing

in front of Sergeant Whaley’s car. Soon thereafter, Defendant nearly hit a marked

patrol vehicle driven by Deputy Kyle O’Connor parked at the entrance to the

subdivision Defendant was exiting. This marked patrol car had its lights and sirens

activated. At trial, Defendant testified he immediately saw the “Sheriff” marking on

the patrol vehicle. Defendant then led both Sergeant Whaley and Deputy O’Connor

on a high-speed chase that lasted approximately thirty minutes. While attempting

to make a turn, Defendant laid down his motorcycle, allowing Sergeant Whaley to

catch him. Defendant continued his efforts to stand the motorcycle back up until he

was finally held at gunpoint and forced to lay the bike back down. Defendant was

subsequently arrested.

      On 1 March 2022, Defendant was indicted for one count of felony Fleeing to

Elude Arrest with a Motor Vehicle, one count of Speeding in Excess of Eighty Miles

Per Hour, one count of Reckless Driving to Endanger, and one count of Carrying a

Concealed Weapon Without a Valid Permit. The trial court determined it did not

have jurisdiction with respect to the Concealed Weapon charge, and the charge was

consequently dismissed.

      Defendant’s case came for trial on 13 September 2022. At the close of the

                                        -2-
                                  STATE V. TEMPLETON

                                   Opinion of the Court

State’s evidence, Defendant moved to dismiss all charges for insufficient evidence.

The trial court denied the motion.

      Defendant then testified as to his account of the incident. Defendant claimed

earlier in the evening on the night of the incident at issue, members of a motorcycle

gang threatened Defendant while he was out riding. During the charge conference,

Defendant requested the jury be instructed on the defense of necessity. The trial

court stated, having viewed the evidence “[i]n the light most favorable to the

defendant . . . in the exercise of discretion, the Court finds that the defendant failed .

. . to demonstrate no other acceptable choices were available.” Accordingly, the trial

court declined to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity.

      On 15 September 2022, the jury returned verdicts finding Defendant guilty of

felony Fleeing to Elude Arrest with a Motor Vehicle and Speeding in Excess of Eighty

Miles Per Hour, and found Defendant not guilty of Reckless Driving to Endanger.

The trial court consolidated the charges and sentenced Defendant to four to fourteen

months of imprisonment, then suspended execution of the sentence and placed

Defendant on supervised probation for twelve months. Defendant timely filed Notice

of Appeal on 23 September 2022.

                                         Issue

      The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by denying

Defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity.

                                       Analysis

                                          -3-
                                 STATE V. TEMPLETON

                                   Opinion of the Court

      “It is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury on all substantial features

of a case raised by the evidence.” State v. Shaw, 322 N.C. 797, 803, 370 S.E.2d 546,

549 (1988) (citation omitted). “When determining whether the evidence is sufficient

to entitle a defendant to jury instructions on a defense or mitigating factor, courts

must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to [the] defendant.” State v.

Mash, 323 N.C. 339, 348, 372 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1988) (citations omitted). We review

challenges to the trial court’s decisions regarding jury instructions de novo. State v.

Osorio, 196 N.C. App. 458, 466, 675 S.E.2d 144, 149 (2009). “However, an error in

jury instructions is prejudicial and requires a new trial only if ‘there is a reasonable

possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result

would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.’ ” State v.

Castaneda, 196 N.C. App. 109, 116, 674 S.E.2d 707, 712 (2009) (quoting N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 15A-1443(a) (2007)).

      The burden of “raising and proving affirmative defenses” is on the defendant

in a criminal trial. State v. Hageman, 307 N.C. 1, 27, 296 S.E.2d 433, 448 (1982).

Where there is insufficient evidence to support each element of a defense, “the trial

judge need not give a requested instruction on that point.” State v. Partin, 48 N.C.

App. 274, 285, 269 S.E.2d 250, 257 (1980).

      To establish a defense of necessity, a defendant must prove: (1) defendant’s

action was reasonable; (2) defendant’s action was taken to protect life, limb, or health

of a person; and (3) no other acceptable choices were available to the defendant. State

                                          -4-
                                STATE V. TEMPLETON

                                    Opinion of the Court

v. Hudgins, 167 N.C. App. 705, 710-11, 606 S.E.2d 443, 447 (2005). Defendant did

not establish his actions were reasonable nor that there were no other acceptable

choices available to him.

      First, Defendant had ample time and opportunity to realize the vehicles

pursuing him were law enforcement.          The pursuit began only after Defendant-

Appellant sped past Sergeant Whaley’s parked patrol car at over 100 miles per hour,

which then activated both lights and sirens. The chase took approximately thirty

minutes. Although Defendant claimed at trial his fear stemmed from threats made

to him by a motorcycle gang, a reasonable person would have realized he was being

pursued by cars, not motorcycles.

      Defendant analogizes this case to State v. Whitmore, an unpublished opinion

of this Court. 264 N.C. App. 136, 823 S.E.2d 167 (2019). Although unpublished

opinions are not controlling legal authority, N.C.R. App. P. Rule 30(e)(3) (2023), this

case is instructive. In Whitmore, we held the trial court did not err by failing to

instruct the jury on the defense of necessity because there was not substantial

evidence of each element of the defense. Id. at *5. There, the defendant fled in a

vehicle after being shot in an altercation at a barber shop, although no one was

pursuing him. Id. at *1. One to two miles from the barber shop, the defendant ran

two red lights while travelling at twice the speed limit and struck another vehicle,

killing the driver. Id. This Court concluded the defense of necessity did not apply

because the defendant had “ample opportunity to realize he was not being pursued

                                           -5-
                                 STATE V. TEMPLETON

                                   Opinion of the Court

in the one or two miles he traveled” before the collision, therefore there was not

evidence presented there were no acceptable alternatives available to the defendant.

Id. at *5.

       Here, although Defendant was, in fact, being followed, he had ample

opportunity to realize the vehicles pursuing him were law enforcement. Unlike the

defendant in Whitmore, whose flight was at most two miles, Defendant’s chase took

thirty minutes—more than enough time for a reasonable person to realize the

vehicles in pursuit were law enforcement. Moreover, the pursuit began only after

Defendant sped past a parked car which then activated lights and sirens.

Additionally, while the defendant in Whitmore had been shot, Defendant in this case

had at most received vague threats from a motorcycle gang, making his reasons for

fleeing from patrol cars less compelling.

       This case is also distinguishable from State v. Miller, in which this Court

concluded the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the defense of necessity.

258 N.C. App. 325, 344, 812 S.E.2d 692, 704-05 (2018). In Miller, the defendant was

convicted of driving while impaired after fleeing from a bar where a patron

threatened him and his wife with a gun, driving a golf cart on a highway. Id. at 326,

812 S.E.2d at 694. In Miller, witnesses testified specifically as to why alternative

routes were not an option and the defense presented evidence that an alternative

driver was likely also intoxicated at the time. Id. at 342-43, 812 S.E.2d at 703-04.

The defendant also presented evidence that his actions were reasonable based on real,

                                            -6-
                                 STATE V. TEMPLETON

                                   Opinion of the Court

present threats made with a deadly weapon. Id. at 339-40, 812 S.E.2d at 702-03.

      Here, Defendant has presented no such evidence on the lack of acceptable

alternatives or the reasonableness of his actions. Again, Defendant passed a marked

police car with lights and sirens activated during the chase, and the chase continued

for a significant amount of time thereafter. Unlike the threat described in Miller,

Defendant in this case did not present evidence to support the reasonableness of his

belief he was being chased by a motorcycle gang. Defendant did not explain why he

believed the patrol cars’ lights and sirens belonged to motorcycles, nor why he failed

to notice the pursuing vehicles had two headlights each rather than one, as is typical

of motorcycles. Knowing the second car was a law enforcement vehicle marked

“Sheriff,” Defendant clearly had an alternative to fleeing. Thus, Defendant did not

establish his actions were reasonable nor that he had no acceptable alternative

available. Therefore, the defense of necessity did not apply. Consequently, the trial

court did not err by not instructing the jury on the defense of necessity.

                                     Conclusion

      Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we conclude there was no error at

Defendant’s trial and affirm the Judgment.

      NO ERROR.

      Judges MURPHY and ARROWOOD concur.

                                          -7-