IN RE: Caswell County
BRIDGETTE NICOLE RICHARDSON, No. 01J40
A Juvenile
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
John W. Congleton, for the State.
David G. Powell for respondent appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
Respondent Bridgette Nicole Richardson (the juvenile) was
charged by juvenile petitions with resisting a public officer in
violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223 (2001), and making a false
report to a law enforcement agency or officer in violation of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-225 (2001). The State's evidence tended to show
that on 27 October 2001, a physical altercation involving
individuals other than the juvenile occurred outside the Caswell
County Courthouse. When officers from the Caswell County Sheriff's
Department responded to the scene and sought to break up the fight
and handcuff one of the persons involved, the juvenile “jumped in”
and demanded that one of the responding officers, Deputy Mike New,
“get [his] hands off [of Greg Bissell].” The juvenile also pulledat Deputy New's shirt. The contact lasted about five to ten
seconds before the juvenile backed away upon the order of the
deputy. Deputy New was wearing a vest with the word “Sheriff”
across the back and a badge affixed to the front.
The juvenile was subsequently arrested and charged with
resisting a public officer under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223. When
she was taken to the Magistrate's Office for processing she told
Deputy New that she was sixteen, but denied having any
identification or any other way of proving her date of birth. When
told by the Magistrate that she would be placed in jail until her
parents arrived to pick her up, respondent restated her age as
fifteen and produced a birth certificate to substantiate her age.
The existing warrant was destroyed and removed from the computer.
Another warrant was later redrawn. The juvenile's false information
resulted in a delay of about 40 minutes.
The juvenile did not present evidence during the adjudicatory
hearing. The district court subsequently found that the State had
proven the allegations of the juvenile petitions beyond a
reasonable doubt, and in a consolidated order, adjudicated the
juvenile to be delinquent. After a dispositional hearing in this
matter, the district court placed the juvenile on probation. The
juvenile appeals.
On appeal, the juvenile first argues that the State's evidence
as to the charge of resisting a public officer varied fatally from
the allegations of the juvenile petition. Accordingly, the
juvenile contends that the adjudication and disposition ordersentered thereon must be vacated. We disagree.
At the outset we note that, much like an adult criminal
defendant would, the juvenile has waived review of this issue
because she did not challenge the facial validity of the juvenile
petition at the adjudicatory or dispositional hearings. See State
v. Call, 353 N.C. 400, 428, 545 S.E.2d 190, 208 (2001), cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 1046, 151 L. Ed. 2d 548 (2001) (absent allegations
that an indictment is facially invalid, as a general rule, a
defendant waives an attack on the indictment when the indictment is
not challenged at trial). See also In re Lineberry, ___ N.C. App.
___, ___, 572 S.E.2d 229, 233 (2002) (“'Juveniles in delinquency
proceedings are entitled to constitutional safeguards similar to
those afforded adult criminal defendants.'”). Id. (quoting In re
Arthur, 27 N.C. App. 227, 229, 218 S.E.2d 869, 871 (1975)).
Even assuming arguendo that this issue was properly preserved,
we conclude there was no fatal variance between the allegations of
the juvenile petition charging a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
223 and the evidence presented by the State during the adjudicatory
hearing. The subject juvenile petition alleged that
the juvenile unlawfully, [and] willfully . . .
did: resist, delay, and obstruct Mike New, a
public officer holding the office of Caswell
County Sheriff's Department, by refusing to
cooperate with the officer when he was
detaining other suspects on the scene. At
that time, the officer was discharging and
attempting to discharge a duty of his office,
detaining other suspects for committing
criminal offenses.
The evidence in this case tended to show that while Deputy New wasattempting to subdue a suspect who was fighting outside the Caswell
County Courthouse, the juvenile began to pull at the deputy's
uniform and told him to let go of the suspect. Although the
juvenile ceased her actions some ten seconds after being ordered by
Deputy New to do so, the evidence does indeed support the
allegations of the juvenile petition. Hence, there is not a fatal
variance between the juvenile petition and the evidence at the
adjudicatory hearing. The juvenile's argument to the contrary
fails.
As argued by the juvenile and conceded by the State, however,
the juvenile petition charging the juvenile with making a false
report to a law enforcement agency or officer in violation of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-225 is wholly insufficient to charge that offense
and must be vacated. The elements of making a false report to a
law enforcement agency or officer under section 14-225 are as
follows:
(1) willfully
(2) making or causing to be made,
(3) a false, misleading, or unfounded report,
(4) for the purpose of
(a) interfering with the operation of a
law enforcement agency, or
(b) hindering or obstructing any law
enforcement officer in performing
official duties.
See State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200, 205, 539 S.E.2d 625, 629 (2000).
In this instance, the juvenile petition alleged only that “thejuvenile, unlawfully [and] willfully . . . did: . . . hinder and
obstruct the law enforcement officer in the performance of his
duty, detaining suspects in a criminal matter.” These allegations
fail to make the necessary factual allegations to apprise the
juvenile of the offense charged. Accordingly, the juvenile
adjudication and disposition orders entered as to this offense must
be vacated. See State v. Norman, 149 N.C. App. 588, 562 S.E.2d 453
(2002) (vacating judgment where indictment failed to allege the
necessary elements to charge the subject offense).
In her final argument, the juvenile contends that the trial
court erred in adjudicating her to be delinquent where the evidence
was insufficient to support such a finding or conclusion. We first
note that the juvenile has waived review of this issue as she
failed to move to dismiss the charges at the close of all of the
evidence. See Lineberry, ___ N.C. App. at ___, 572 S.E.2d at 232
(holding that a juvenile who made no motion to dismiss the juvenile
petition at the close of the evidence during the adjudicatory
hearing had waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence on appeal); and N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(3) (2003).
Additionally or alternatively, in the event this issue was properly
before the Court, we summarily conclude that there is plenary
evidence on this record to support the trial court's finding that
on or about October 27, 2001, the juvenile
unlawfully and willfully did resist, delay and
obstruct Mike New, a public officer holding
the office of Caswell County Sheriff's
Department, by refusing to cooperate with the
officer when he was detaining other suspects
on the scene. At that time, the officer wasdischarging and attempting to discharge a duty
of his office, detaining other suspects for
committing criminal offenses, in violation of
G.S. 14-223.
The trial court, therefore, did not err in adjudicating the
juvenile delinquent based upon this finding. As discussed
previously, however, the trial court's adjudication and disposition
orders based upon the juvenile's violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
225 must be vacated.
In light of the foregoing, the adjudication and disposition
orders as to the charge of resisting a public officer are affirmed.
The adjudication and disposition orders as to the offense of making
a false report to a law enforcement agency or officer are vacated.
Affirmed in part; and vacated in part.
Judges MARTIN and CALABRIA concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***