This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on July 16, 2024. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
Defendant’s repeated phone calls and in-person contact caused the victim substantial emotional distress and represented harassment to support felony stalking conviction.
State v. Smith, COA23-997, ___ N.C. App. ___ (July 16, 2024). In this Pitt County case, defendant appealed his conviction for felony stalking, arguing error in denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence of harassing the victim, or in the alternative insufficient evidence that defendant should have known a reasonable person would suffer substantial emotional distress after receiving his unsolicited phone calls. The Court of Appeals found no error.
In the summer of 2021, defendant met a 75-year-old widow at his church; they attended the same weekday services and participated in the church’s prayer line. After a weekday service, defendant asked the widow for her phone number, which she willingly gave to defendant. When the widow arrived home, she found that defendant had called her multiple times and left seven voicemails. The repeated calls continued for at least six months, with defendant making comments about dating the widow and having sex with her. Defendant also approached the widow at church services. Eventually the widow told the church’s pastor and local police, leading to the felony stalking charge. At trial, defendant admitted he had previously been convicted of misdemeanor stalking, one element of the offense of felony stalking.
The Court of Appeals dispensed with defendant’s arguments by determining the State presented substantial evidence of each element of felony stalking. The court first reviewed G.S. 14-277.3A for the elements of the stalking offense. Two elements of the offense were in question for the current case, whether defendant harassed the victim, and whether defendant knew or should have known his conduct would create substantial emotional distress for a reasonable person. The court noted that testimony in the record was “substantial evidence that Defendant’s conduct constituted harassment that tormented and terrorized [the widow] and served no legitimate purpose.” Slip Op. at 8.
Having established that defendant’s conduct was harassment the court moved to substantial emotional distress. The statute in question specifically referenced suffering that may require “medical or other professional treatment or counseling.” Id. Applicable precedent also held that “evidence that the victim significantly altered their lifestyle in response to the harassing conduct” supported a finding of substantial emotional distress. Id. The court found both of those aspects here, explaining defendant’s conduct caused the widow to “feel terror, to suffer emotional torment that prompted her to seek out medical and psychiatric care, and to change her daily habits and routine due to her fear of continued harassment.” Id. at 9.