Court Opinion

ID: 9403040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 12:06:30.658742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:04.077677
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                   No. COA22-922

                                 Filed 20 June 2023

Johnston County, Nos. 20CRS055301-2

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

              v.

BRITTANY MICHELLE JACKSON

        Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 7 March 2022 by Judge Thomas

H. Lock in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 April

2023.

        Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Rana M.
        Badwan, for the State-Appellee.

        Stephen G. Driggers for Defendant-Appellant.

        COLLINS, Judge.

        Defendant Brittany Michelle Jackson appeals from judgment entered upon

jury verdicts of guilty of misdemeanor possession of marijuana and misdemeanor

fleeing to elude arrest with a motor vehicle. Defendant argues that the trial court

erred by denying her motion to dismiss the charge of fleeing to elude arrest because

the State presented insufficient evidence that she had the specific intent to elude

arrest. We find no error.
                                   STATE V. JACKSON

                                       Opinion of the Court

                                  I.      Background

      On 28 October 2020, Defendant attended a barbeque with her son at an

apartment complex in Selma, North Carolina. Around 7 pm, Defendant left the

complex to drive another individual to the store. Selma Police Detective Justin Vause

and Officer Joseph Atkinson were parked in a marked police vehicle where they could

“watch the duly regulated stop sign” leading out of the apartment complex. Vause

watched Defendant drive through the stop sign at 10 miles per hour without braking

and began to follow her. Vause pulled in behind her and activated his lights and

sirens to conduct a traffic stop. Defendant “made an abrupt turn” onto another street

and “went into the oncoming lane and continued to travel in the oncoming lane of

travel.” “At that time[,] the vehicle turned on its hazard lights and increased its

speed” from a very slow speed to about 35 to 40 miles per hour in a residential area

marked as a 25 mile-per-hour zone.

      Defendant called 911 as she put her hazard lights on. She did not initially stop

because she did not know the area and did not know if the marked car behind her

was an “actual police officer.” During the 911 call, the operator told Defendant that

it was a police officer in the car behind her.

      Defendant kept driving and then made an abrupt right turn onto a different

street, turning into the oncoming lane of light traffic. She continued to travel in the

oncoming lane. Defendant then made another right turn onto a different street and

continued to maintain a speed over the legal limit; she only “slow[ed] down enough to

                                              -2-
                                  STATE V. JACKSON

                                  Opinion of the Court

make [the vehicle’s] turn” and “then [she] increase[d] its speed back up.” Defendant

did not stop for the posted stop signs at either turn. During the pursuit, Defendant

and Vause passed several well-lit areas including a church, fire station, EMS station,

and civic center.

      Defendant made a final right turn and traveled back towards the apartment

complex for approximately one mile with “numerous patrol vehicles behind” her.

Defendant’s speed remained above the speed limit, fluctuating between 30 to 45 miles

per hour in the 25 mile-per-hour residential zone. When Defendant made the final

right turn, Vause saw that “the passenger window was down, and at that time, there

[were] objects being thrown out of the vehicle.” Vause then smelled an overwhelming

odor of marijuana in his patrol vehicle.

      Upon arrival at the apartment complex, Defendant parked in the “very back”

area of the complex. Vause parked, exited his vehicle, approached the driver’s side,

and commanded Defendant to get out of the car. Defendant did not comply. Vause

“beat on the window to tell [Defendant] to open the window” and tried “to open the

door and the door was locked.” After a few moments, Defendant opened the door and

Vause was able to remove Defendant from the vehicle. Defendant was “belligerent,”

“argumentative,” and “jumping in [Vause’s] face,” and Vause placed Defendant in

handcuffs. As Defendant was being placed under arrest, around 50 to 60 people

gathered at the scene. Defendant continued to be argumentative and “act out” as

Vause placed Defendant inside his patrol car; Defendant then unrolled the patrol

                                           -3-
                                         STATE V. JACKSON

                                          Opinion of the Court

car’s window with her foot and shouted at the group of people to provoke the crowd.

Vause and a female officer put Defendant in leg shackles to keep her from rolling any

windows down and from further provoking the crowd.

        On 7 December 2020, Defendant was indicted for possession with intent to

manufacture, sell, or distribute marijuana; possession of marijuana paraphernalia;

and felony fleeing to elude arrest with a motor vehicle.1 The case came on for trial on

28 February 2022.          After the State’s evidence and again after all the evidence,

Defendant moved to dismiss the charge of felony fleeing to elude arrest for insufficient

evidence. The trial court denied the motion.

        The jury found Defendant not guilty of possession of marijuana paraphernalia

but guilty of misdemeanor possession of marijuana and misdemeanor fleeing to elude

arrest with a motor vehicle. Defendant was sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment; the

trial court then suspended the sentence and placed Defendant on 12 months’

supervised probation. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.

                                        II.    Discussion

        Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the charge of

fleeing to elude arrest with a motor vehicle because the State failed to present

        1N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-141.5(a) provides that a violation of the section constitutes a Class 1
misdemeanor. However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-141.5(b) provides that, if two or more aggravating factors
are present at the time the violation occurs, a violation of the section shall be a Class H felony. These
aggravating factors include, inter alia, reckless driving as proscribed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-140 and
driving when the person’s driver’s license is revoked. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-141.5(b)(3), (5) (2022). These
two aggravating factors were listed on Defendant’s indictment.

                                                  -4-
                                  STATE V. JACKSON

                                  Opinion of the Court

sufficient evidence of Defendant’s intent to elude arrest.

A. Standard of Review

      “In ruling on a motion to dismiss, 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. Golder, 374 N.C. 238, 249, 839 S.E.2d 782, 790

(2020) (citations omitted). “Substantial evidence is [the] amount . . . necessary to

persuade a rational juror to accept a conclusion.”       Id. (citations omitted).   “In

evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, the

evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State; the State is

entitled to every reasonable intendment and every reasonable inference to be drawn

therefrom.” Id. at 249-50, 839 S.E.2d at 790 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

We disregard a defendant’s evidence except to the extent it favors or clarifies the

State’s case. State v. Graves, 203 N.C. App. 123, 125, 690 S.E.2d 545, 547 (2010)

(citation omitted). “Contradictions and discrepancies are for the jury to resolve and

do not warrant dismissal.” State v. Gibson, 342 N.C. 142, 150, 463 S.E.2d 193, 199

(1995). “Whether the State presented substantial evidence of each essential element

of the offense is a question of law; therefore, we review the denial of a motion to

dismiss de novo.” Golder 374 N.C. at 250, 839 S.E.2d at 790 (citations omitted).

B. Discussion

      N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-141.5(a) provides, “It shall be unlawful for any person to

operate a motor vehicle on a street, highway, or public vehicular area while fleeing or

                                         -5-
                                  STATE V. JACKSON

                                  Opinion of the Court

attempting to elude a law enforcement officer who is in the lawful performance of his

duties.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-141.5(a) (2022). “[A] defendant accused of violating N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 20-141.5 must actually intend to operate a motor vehicle in order to elude

law enforcement officers . . . .” State v. Woodard, 146 N.C. App. 75, 80, 552 S.E.2d

650, 654 (2001). “Intent is a mental attitude seldom provable by direct evidence. It

must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred.” State v.

McDaris, 274 N.C. App. 339, 344, 852 S.E.2d 403, 407-08 (2020) (citation omitted).

      Considered in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence tends to show

the following: Defendant ran a stop sign after leaving the apartment complex. Vause

pulled in behind Defendant and Defendant saw Vause turn on his vehicle’s emergency

equipment. She abruptly turned right onto a different street, traveling into the

oncoming lane of travel. Defendant then increased her speed, drove 10 to 15 miles

per hour above the posted 25 mile-per-hour speed limit, made a series of abrupt right

turns, drove through several stop signs, again swerved into the oncoming lane, and

passed several well-lit areas in a residential neighborhood, including a fire station

and an EMS station. During Vause’s pursuit, marijuana was thrown out of the car

that Defendant was driving. When Defendant pulled over, she initially refused to

comply with Vause’s commands to roll her window down and open her door, and then

was combative with the officers and tried to provoke the crowd that had formed at

her arrest. After arrest, she continued to provoke the crowd by rolling down the patrol

car’s window and shouting.

                                         -6-
                                   STATE V. JACKSON

                                    Opinion of the Court

      “This is not a case of a nervous motorist taking a moment longer than

necessary to stop for an officer in order to pull into a well-lit or populated parking lot

to stop instead of stopping on a dark or empty highway[.]” State v. Cameron, 223 N.C.

App. 72, 76, 732 S.E.2d 386, 389 (2012). The State’s evidence is substantial evidence

tending to show Defendant intended to evade officers.           See id.   (evidence that

defendant intentionally drove away from a law enforcement officer “at a high rate of

speed while committing traffic violations and seriously endangering herself, many

law enforcement officers, and anyone else on the road along the way” was sufficient

to survive a motion to dismiss).        Accordingly, the trial court properly denied

Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

                                 III.   Conclusion

      As the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is substantial

evidence of each element of the crime of fleeing to elude arrest, the trial court did not

err by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

      NO ERROR.

      Judges TYSON and RIGGS concur.

                                           -7-