Court Opinion

ID: 9377225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 14:05:18.293324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.005689
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                    No. COA22-812

                               Filed 07 March 2023

Alamance County, Nos. 18CRS54798-801 19CRS873

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

            v.

JASON DEON NORMAN

      Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 February 2022 by Judge

D. Thomas Lambeth, Jr. in Alamance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of

Appeals 21 February 2023.

      Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Narcisa
      Woods, for the State.

      Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellant Defender Jillian C.
      Franke, for the defendant-appellant.

      TYSON, Judge.

      Jason Norman (“Defendant”) appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury’s

verdict finding him guilty of human trafficking and sexual servitude regarding

Defendant’s ex-wife, Connie. Our review shows no error.

                               I.     Background

      Defendant was a truck driver at the time of the alleged offenses. Defendant

met Alicia in late 2015, and began dating her shortly thereafter (pseudonym used to

protect the identity of the victims). Defendant pursued Alicia, by buying her gifts
                                        STATE V. NORMAN

                                        Opinion of the Court

and taking her on dates.

       Prior to meeting Defendant, Alicia had prostituted herself occasionally on the

streets. She also used crack cocaine. Alicia began buying crack cocaine and heroin

through and from Defendant. She started regularly working as a prostitute from the

Red Carpet Inn rooms Defendant had paid for. Alicia engaged in prostitution to

secure money to pay Defendant for the rooms and drugs. Defendant did not allow

Alicia to buy drugs from anyone else.

       Alicia initially only prostituted herself enough to pay back Defendant for the

rooms and drugs. As time passed, Alicia felt Defendant pimped her to engage in more

prostitution.    Alicia would typically give leftover money from prostitution to

Defendant after paying Defendant for the rooms and drugs. To find customers for

sexual services, Alicia posted advertisements on Backpage.com and Craigslist.com.

       Initially, Alicia was the only prostitute working with Defendant. The group

eventually grew to include eight to twelve women. The women included, among

others, Holly, Connie, Kelly, and Hailey. Alicia tried to leave Defendant on multiple

occasions after he became abusive towards her.

       Connie, Defendant’s ex-wife, was Defendant’s “do girl.” Connie would complete

whatever tasks Defendant asked of her, including assisting with posting ads seeking

johns for the other girls. Connie would also check behind Alicia to ensure Alicia was

posting advertisements and prostituting. Connie was served a subpoena, but she

failed to appear at trial to testify.

                                               -2-
                                   STATE V. NORMAN

                                   Opinion of the Court

         Holly also met Defendant through a dating relationship but she, like Alicia,

eventually began prostituting herself to pay Defendant for hotel rooms and drugs.

Holly only reimbursed Defendant enough money to pay him for the hotel rooms and

drugs.

         Kelly met Defendant one evening while she was prostituting on the street.

Defendant engaged her sexual services and paid for the room. After their liaison,

Kelly only purchased drugs from Defendant.

         Hailey also worked with Defendant, prostituting out of hotel rooms Defendant

had procured for her and the others to use.         Hailey did not develop a romantic

relationship with Defendant, but did engage in sexual relations with him. Like Alicia,

Hailey posted ads seeking sexual customers on Backpage.com and Craigslist.com,

after she learned how to do so from Defendant and the other women. Hailey also

discovered a GPS tracker on her phone Defendant had installed to track her location.

         Defendant was “in the process with” all the women and provided money for

rooms. Defendant would provide drugs for the women before he left for work, and he

expected payment for the drugs and hotel rooms when he returned. The women were

not allowed to have anyone else inside the rooms other than paying customers.

         Defendant kept track of the debts owed to him through a ledger contained on

a computer and notepads. Alicia often carried the notepads and otherwise helped

Defendant run his illicit businesses through transporting drugs or money.

Eventually, all the women and Defendant were banned from staying at the Red

                                          -3-
                                  STATE V. NORMAN

                                  Opinion of the Court

Carpet Inn. Defendant rented a house for the women to prostitute. Connie lived at

the house with Alicia and some of the other women.

      On 24 November 2016, the Burlington Police Department responded to a call

at a truck stop near Mebane. The call had alleged a sexual assault. At the scene, the

officer came into contact with Defendant, Connie, and Darius King. Defendant told

the officer Connie had called Defendant while she was engaging in prostitution.

During that phone call, Connie told Defendant she had been raped by King.

      On 15 January 2017, the Burlington Police Department responded to a call at

the Red Carpet Inn regarding a domestic dispute. When the officer arrived, Connie,

Defendant, and Alicia were present. Defendant told the officer Connie was his ex-

wife and they had been separated for about three years. Defendant also accused

Connie of stealing $250 from him the night before.

      On 22 January 2017, the Graham Police Department responded to a call

reporting solicitation for prostitution at a truck stop. Upon arrival, the officer met

with a truck driver who handed the officer a business card he had received from the

woman soliciting.    The business card advertised for a purported entity called

“Fantasy Island”, and it contained a phone number and the email address:

jdnorman302.wixsite.com/mysite.

      The officer called the number on the card and reached Alicia. The officer

pretended to be a truck driver and asked Alicia to provide sexual services at the truck

stop. Alicia provided pricing and explored the officer’s interests. According to the

                                         -4-
                                   STATE V. NORMAN

                                   Opinion of the Court

officer, Alicia’s word choices and her descriptions of acts are not used “in anything

other than prostitution.”

      Defendant, Alicia, and Connie arrived in the same vehicle at the truck stop.

Defendant was driving the vehicle to drop Connie off for the offered “companionship”

services. At that point, the officers approached the vehicle. Defendant, Alicia, and

Connie denied engaging in prostitution, and told the officers any services were for

“companionship.”

      No charges were brought arising from this incident, but Alicia was taken into

custody for an unrelated warrant for failure to appear. Following the incident, a

detective in the Special Victims Unit at the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office

searched online databases and located the self-described “Fantasy Island” at

jdnorman302.wixsite.com/mysite.

      On 17 March 2017, Alamance County Narcotics Enforcement team members

executed a search warrant at Defendant’s home. During the search, officers seized

ten notepads found throughout the house. One of the notepads had a page with three

columns labeled: “plays, debt, and paid.” The officer understood the information on

the page to document prostitution encounters. Another notebook included a shopping

list of “copy keys, condom, lube, eye liner.”

      Yet another notebook had a list of times, with “Eric times two” and “QV, Jen”

written next to the time stamps.        The officer knew from investigating human

trafficking and prostitution that “QV” normally stands for “quick visits,” meaning

                                          -5-
                                  STATE V. NORMAN

                                  Opinion of the Court

fifteen-minute prostitution encounters. One of the notepads contained Connie’s name

with “1G $20 + $20” beside her name.         Based upon his experience, the officer

understood the “1G” to represent one gram of whatever substance the individual was

selling.

       On 15 December 2017, Burlington Police Department responded to a drug

complaint at the Red Carpet Inn. When officers arrived, they spoke with Defendant

and Hailey. Officers requested to enter the room. Inside of the room, the officers saw

a white powdery substance in plain view on the table beside a razor blade, which they

believed was used for narcotics based on their training and experience.

       Additionally, the officers noticed a notepad that appeared to be a ledger, and

which contained names with money amounts next to them. Hailey told the officers

she was not a prostitute, but she was a drug user. Hailey denied buying drugs from

Defendant. Rather, Hailey described Defendant as a “father figure” and told the

officers he had helped to provide for her. With Hailey’s consent, Officers searched

Hailey’s room, where they encountered two male individuals and another female.

The officers found items Hailey admitted belonging to her, including Amazon gift

cards and what appeared to be yet another notebook containing a ledger.

       Additionally, the officers located a small bag of marijuana inside the bathroom

and torn corners of plastic baggies, several unused needles, burnt pieces of Chore Boy

scrubbers, and a paper bag containing Chore Boy scrubbers. The officers believed all

the items were indicative of drug use, based on their training and experience.

                                         -6-
                                 STATE V. NORMAN

                                  Opinion of the Court

Further, the officers found a glass smoking pipe, a metal smoking pipe, a gift card,

and several papers with names, monetary amounts, and login information for Gmail,

Backpage.com, and Craigslist.com accounts.

      The other woman inside the room admitted to engaging in prostitution, but

said she worked on her own. She explained Defendant was not her boss or pimp, but

he provided the room and drugs.       She explained she prostituted herself to pay

Defendant back. Both Hailey and the other woman inside her room consented to the

officer searching their phones. The officers found text message conversations about

prostitution and sexual acts. The officers later discovered an advertisement for

prostitution on Craigslist.com for a woman whose advertisement contained an email

address, which matched the email contained on papers found inside the room.

      On 5 September 2018, the Burlington Police Department Special Victims Unit

apprehended Defendant and searched Defendant’s car pursuant to a warrant. In the

car, the officers found two packages of 40 count lifestyle condoms, one 150 count

package of sandwich bags, one container of KY jelly lubricant, and one large box of

syringes. Officers also found two ledger notebooks. Defendant voluntarily sat for a

recorded interview with two officers after he was seized.

      On 29 April 2019, Defendant was indicted for three counts each of human

trafficking an adult victim, sexual servitude of an adult victim, and promoting

prostitution between 24 November 2016 through 5 September 2018 in case 18 CRS

54798-00. On 7 July 2021, superseding indictments were issued for the same charges.

                                         -7-
                                     STATE V. NORMAN

                                         Opinion of the Court

Additionally, Defendant was charged with promoting prostitution in 18 CRS 54801,

as well as human trafficking, sexual servitude, and promoting prostitution in 19 CRS

873. In connection with the investigation, Alicia was also charged with human

trafficking, sexual servitude, and promoting prostitution. Alicia pled guilty pursuant

to a plea agreement to promoting prostitution and agreed to testify for the State.

      A trial was held beginning on 1 February 2022. Prior to deliberations, the

court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss one count each of human trafficking and

sexual servitude “regarding” or “related to” June, but it denied Defendant’s motion to

dismiss charges concerning Connie and Holly.

      The jury found Defendant guilty of three counts each of human trafficking and

sexual servitude, but not guilty of five counts of promoting prostitution. Defendant

was sentenced as a prior record level V offender to active terms of incarceration of

130 to 216 months to run consecutively. Defendant entered oral notice of appeal in

open court.

                                   II.      Jurisdiction

      Jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b) and

15A-1444(a) (2021).

                          III.     Substantial Evidence

      Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the

charges of human trafficking and sexual servitude regarding Connie, Defendant’s ex-

wife, for insufficient evidence.

                                                -8-
                                   STATE V. NORMAN

                                   Opinion of the Court

                               A. Standard of Review

      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) (citation omitted). “When a

defendant moves for dismissal, 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. Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 222 (1994) (citation omitted). “[A]ll

evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the State, and the State receives

the benefit of every reasonable inference supported by that evidence.” State v. Fisher,

228 N.C. App. 463, 471, 745 S.E.2d 894, 900 (2013) (citation omitted).

      “Whether the evidence presented at trial is substantial evidence is a question

of law for the court.” Id. (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence

that a reasonable person might accept as adequate, or would consider necessary to

support a particular conclusion.” Id. “Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant

evidence necessary to persuade a rational juror to accept a conclusion.” State v. Scott,

356 N.C. 591, 597, 573 S.E.2d 866, 869 (2002) (citation omitted).

      “[I]t is for the jury to decide whether the facts, taken singly or in combination,

satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is actually guilty.” State

v. Poole, 24 N.C. App. 381, 384, 210 S.E.2d 529, 530 (1975) (citation omitted).

“Circumstantial evidence may withstand a motion to dismiss and support a conviction

even when the evidence does not rule out every hypothesis of innocence.” Scott, 356

                                          -9-
                                  STATE V. NORMAN

                                   Opinion of the Court

N.C. at 596, 573 S.E.2d at 869 (citation omitted).

                                     B. Analysis

      Defendant argues insufficient evidence shows Defendant recruited, provided,

or obtained Connie with the intent of holding her in sexual servitude, or that

Defendant subjected or maintained her for sexual servitude. We disagree.

      A person is guilty of human trafficking when in “knowingly or in reckless

disregard of the consequences of the action [the person] recruits, entices, harbors,

transports, provides, or obtains by any means another person with the intent that the

other person be held in involuntary servitude or sexual servitude.” N.C. Gen. Stat. §

14-43.11 (2021).

      A person is guilty of sexual servitude when they “knowingly or in reckless

disregard of the consequences of the action [the person] subjects, maintains, or

obtains another for the purposes of sexual servitude.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-43.13(a)

(2021). “Sexual servitude” includes “[a]ny sexual activity as defined in G.S. 14-190.13

for which anything of value is directly or indirectly given, promised to, or received by

any person, which conduct is induced or obtained by coercion or deception.” N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 14-43.10(a)(5)(a) (2021). “Coercion” includes “providing a controlled substance

as defined by G.S. 90-87 to a person” received by any person, which conduct is induced

or obtained by coercion or deception.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-43.10(a)(1)(d) (2021).

      Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence tends to show, on

at least one occasion, Defendant transported Connie to engage in paid sexual services.

                                          - 10 -
                                  STATE V. NORMAN

                                  Opinion of the Court

On 22 January 2017, Alicia answered a call requesting sexual services at a truck stop.

Defendant argues no evidence connects Defendant with Connie’s actions that day,

but Defendant drove Connie to the truck stop in response to the call for prostitution.

Defendant’s name appeared in the URL on the business card the caller had used to

solicit Connie.

      Substantial evidence supports a reasonable inference to find and conclude

Defendant was guilty of human trafficking and of sexual servitude of Connie. A jury

could reasonably conclude Defendant oversaw, organized, and transported Connie for

sexual servitude on 22 January 2017. Defendant’s argument is overruled.

      Defendant also argues no evidence tended to show Connie engaged in sexual

servitude in exchange for something of value from Defendant.          On at least one

occasion, Connie purchased drugs from Defendant.           Additionally, on a separate

occasion, officers responded to a domestic dispute between Defendant and Connie at

the Red Carpet Inn, where women associated with Defendant provided hired sexual

acts. The dispute revolved around money Connie had allegedly stolen and owed

Defendant. Defendant told the responding officers she owed him $250. Further,

Connie lived with the other women at the Red Carpet Inn and, later, at the house

Defendant rented for the rendition of hired sexual acts.

      Although no additional testimony tended to show Connie purchased drugs in

connection with sexual servitude, the evidence, taken as a whole, shows Defendant

provided and sold the other women drugs and coerced or encouraged them to engage

                                         - 11 -
                                  STATE V. NORMAN

                                  Opinion of the Court

in prostitution to repay Defendant for the drugs and hotel rooms.         It was not

unreasonable for a jury to find Connie engaged in sexual servitude in exchange for

something of value from Defendant when Connie purchased drugs from Defendant

on at least one occasion and lived with the other women where Defendant provided

accommodations for hired sexual acts. Taken as a whole, a reasonable juror could

conclude Defendant coerced Connie into sexual servitude with drugs and

accommodations.

      Alicia testified and the facts tend to show Connie, like Alicia, was actively

involved in Defendant’s criminal enterprise of requiring women to trade and engage

sexual services to pay for drugs and lodging Defendant provided to keep the women

in sexual servitude and making sure the women were posting ads, soliciting, seeking,

and getting work to prostitute and performing hired sexual acts. Other evidence,

including the various ledgers located during searches tends to show Connie, even

though she was Defendant’s current or former wife and his “do girl”, was also forced

to pay for drugs and housing. Alisha was charged as a principal. Connie was not.

      While this decision may indicate selectivity or discretion in prosecution, the

jury could reasonably conclude Connie was trafficked and held in sexual servitude by

Defendant, despite Alicia’s testimony and the arguably contradictory evidence. While

the jury could reasonably find Connie willingly contributed to, engaged in and did

supervisory work in the prostitution operation, they could also find Connie was forced

to do so to support her drug habit and housing needs.           “Contradictions and

                                         - 12 -
                                  STATE V. NORMAN

                                  Opinion of the Court

discrepancies do not warrant dismissal of the case but are for the jury to

resolve.” Scott, 356 N.C. at 596, 573 S.E.2d at 869 (citation omitted). As the jury is

the finder of facts, Defendant’s argument is overruled.

                               IV.     Conclusion

      The State’s evidence, taken as a whole, is sufficient for a reasonable jury to

find and conclude Defendant is guilty of sexual servitude and human trafficking of

Connie. Connie lived with the other women in the house paid for by Defendant to

provide a place and accommodation for prostitution, purchased drugs from Defendant

on at least one occasion, and was transported by Defendant to a truck stop to engage

in and render hired sexual services.

      Defendant’s argument regarding sentencing upon remand are moot.

Defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial errors he preserved and argued.

We find no error in the jury’s verdicts or in the judgment entered thereon. It is so

ordered.

      NO ERROR.

      Chief Judge STROUD and Judge ARROWOOD concur.

                                         - 13 -