State v. Jackson ( 2023 )

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-