This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on August 20, 2025.
An indictment for injuring property to obtain non-ferrous metals was sufficient despite the lack of any allegation concerning the value of the property damage.
State v. Council, No. COA25-78 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025) (Hampson). In this Durham County case, the defendant was suspected of stealing a catalytic converter from a truck. He was indicted for, and convicted of, felony larceny and felony injury to property to obtain non-ferrous metals. He appealed, asserting that the indictment for the injury to property charge was defective for failing to specify the value of the property damage.
The offense is set forth in G.S. 14-159.4, which makes it “unlawful for a person to willfully and wantonly cut, mutilate, deface, or otherwise injure any personal or real property of another . . . for the purpose of obtaining nonferrous metals in any amount.”
Subsection (c) of the statute concerns “punishment,” and reads:
(1) Default. – If the direct injury is to property, and the amount of loss in value to the property, the amount of repairs necessary to return the property to its condition before the act, or the property loss (including fixtures or improvements) is less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), a violation shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor. If the applicable amount is one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more, but less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), a violation shall be punishable as a Class H felony. If the applicable amount is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more, a violation shall be deemed an aggravated offense and shall be punishable as a Class F felony.
The indictment in this case tracked the statutory language concerning the injury to property but it contained no allegation about the dollar value of the damage.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the indictment was nonetheless sufficient. It cited State v. Mostafavi, 370 N.C. 681 (2018), in which the state supreme court deemed valid an indictment for obtaining property by false pretenses despite the lack of an allegation concerning the value of the property obtained. Similarly here, the court concluded that the defendant “had reasonable notice . . . to inform him of the offense charged, enable him to prepare a defense, and protect him against any risk of double jeopardy—as well as preparing a defense for the amount of property loss or repair costs if that were, in fact, at issue.”
Evidence that the defendant failed to mention self-defense when describing a shooting to a relative was properly admitted; the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to silence was not implicated absent questioning by law enforcement.
State v. McCall, No. COA24-779 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025) (Griffin). This Jackson County case began when the defendant’s cousin shot one of the defendant’s pigs, which was running free on a campground the cousin maintained. The defendant happened to be nearby and confronted his cousin about the pig. During the confrontation, the defendant shot his cousin twice. The defendant fled to his brother’s house, where he spoke with his brother and his nephew about the shooting before being arrested and charged with attempted murder and other crimes.
At trial, the defendant claimed self-defense. The prosecutor called the defendant’s nephew as a witness. The nephew testified that he did not recall the defendant saying anything about self-defense or about his cousin pointing a gun at him. The defendant was convicted and appealed, arguing that the trial judge committed plain error by allowing evidence of the defendant’s pre-arrest silence concerning his alleged need to defend himself to be admitted against him.
The Court of Appeals found no plain error for two reasons. First, the Fifth Amendment guarantees a suspect’s right to remain silent, and not to have his or her silence used against him or her at trial. “However, such protection is generally only afforded against government actors—not civilians.” Here, the defendant was talking to his brother and nephew with no law enforcement involvement, so the Fifth Amendment was not implicated. Second, even if the trial court erred, the error was not prejudicial because other evidence undermined the defendant’s claim of self-defense. Ballistic evidence suggested that the cousin’s hand was on the steering wheel when he was shot, not holding a rifle. And after the defendant shot his cousin, he did not call 911 and did not render aid, but rather fled the scene.