IN THE MATTER OF: Alamance County
No. 02 J 218
M.L.L.
Appeal by juvenile from adjudication and disposition orders
entered 9 December 2003 by Judge J. Kent Washburn in Alamance
County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 November
2004.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Brenda Eaddy, for the State.
Gilda C. Rodriguez for the respondent-appellant.
ELMORE, Judge.
Respondent, a fifteen year old boy, had been having discipline
problems at school. His stepfather warned him if he got [o]ne
more phone call, you [sic] getting your corn rows cut off. Two
days later, the stepfather received a phone call from another
teacher that respondent was disrespecting her and her class.
Accordingly, he told respondent that he would be taking him to get
his hair cut. However, when he took respondent to the barber shop,
respondent had failed to loosen the plaits so his hair could not be
cut.
On 5 September 2003, the day of the assault, the stepfather
decided to discipline respondent by spanking him. The stepfather
took off his belt to spank respondent. As he went to spankrespondent, respondent reached around and grabbed his stepfather's
arm. The stepfather testified that respondent scratched him, and
when he saw he had been scratched, he started spanking respondent.
He stated that I had to wrestle him down. He wanted to fight. We
wrestling around. Eventually, respondent got up, ran out the door
and went to the police. Due to a mark on respondent's face, the
stepfather was charged with misdemeanor child abuse. Respondent
testified in his own defense and denied scratching his stepfather
or trying to get away from him.
On 22 September 2003, a juvenile petition was filed alleging
that respondent had assaulted his stepfather by fighting with him
and scratching his left arm. A hearing was held on the matter on
23 October 2003. On 9 December 2003, respondent was adjudicated a
delinquent juvenile for committing the charged offense.
Specifically, the trial court stated that respondent had assaulted
and struck his stepfather by fighting with him and scratching his
left arm. A Level 2 disposition order was entered placing
respondent on probation for one year. Respondent appeals.
Respondent first argues that there was a material variance
between the conduct alleged in the petition and the conduct for
which he was adjudicated delinquent. Respondent contends that the
scratching of the arm was the misconduct for which the petition was
filed, and the trial court concluded it was accidental. Instead,
respondent asserts that the trial court erroneously adjudicated him
delinquent for grabbing his stepfather, conduct not alleged in the
petition. Accordingly, respondent argues that the petition shouldhave been dismissed.
After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of
the parties, we affirm. This Court has stated:
An indictment must set forth each of the
essential elements of the offense.
Allegations beyond the essential elements of
the offense are irrelevant and may be treated
as surplusage and disregarded when testing the
sufficiency of the indictment. To require
dismissal any variance must be material and
substantial and involve an essential element.
State v. Pelham, _ N.C. App. _, _, 595 S.E.2d 197, 203,
(2004)(citations omitted). Furthermore, [i]t is only 'where the
evidence tends to show the commission of an offense not charged in
the indictment [that] there is a fatal variance between the
allegations and the proof requiring dismissal.' State v. Poole,
154 N.C. App. 419, 423, 572 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2002)(quoting State v.
Williams, 303 N.C. 507, 510, 279 S.E.2d 592, 594 (1981)), cert.
denied, 356 N.C. 689, 578 S.E.2d 589 (2003).
In the instant case, the petition alleged that respondent
assaulted his stepfather by fighting with him and scratching his
left arm. There was substantial evidence that respondent fought
with his stepfather in accordance with the petition. His
stepfather testified that respondent grabbed his arm and wanted to
fight. The stepfather further testified that he had to wrestle
respondent to the ground; grabbing and wrestling are in the nature
of fighting. Thus, there was no variance between the allegation in
the petition and the proof adduced at trial. Although the trial
court found that the scratching was accidental, it was incidental
to the fighting. Accordingly, the assignment of error isoverruled.
Respondent next argues that the trial court failed to find
beyond a reasonable doubt that he assaulted his stepfather in
accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2411. Respondent contends
that the trial court was required to specifically state that it had
found beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegations in the
petition had been proved.
We find no error. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2411 requires a judge
to 'state' the finding that the allegations in the petition have
been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to adjudicate a
child as a delinquent. In re Rikard, 161 N.C. App. 150, 154, 587
S.E.2d 467, 469 (2003)(citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2411 (2003)).
Respondent argues that the trial court failed to comply with N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 7B-2411 by failing to state in open court that the
allegations had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However,
we have previously held a court's failure to make the finding
orally at the time of the hearing is not error where the finding
was included in the written order. Rikard, 161 N.C. App. at 154,
587 S.E.2d at 469 (citing In re Mitchell, 87 N.C. App. 164, 166,
359 S.E.2d 809, 811 (1987)). In the instant case, the adjudicatory
order states that the following fact has been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt:
Assault and Strike . . . [stepfather] by
fighting with him and scratching his left arm
in violation of General Statute 14-33(a)
Thus, we conclude the trial court complied with N.C. Gen. Stat. §
7B-2411. Affirmed.
Judges HUNTER and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***