STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Gaston County
No. 02CRS63069
ROBERT EUGENE BARTLETT, JR.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Donald R. Teeter, for the State.
Thorsen Law Office, by Haakon Thorsen, for defendant-
appellant.
ELMORE, Judge.
On 7 August 2002, a warrant for arrest was issued charging
defendant Robert Eugene Bartlett, Jr., with communicating threats.
The case was tried at the 20 April 2004 Criminal Session of Gaston
County Superior Court.
The evidence presented at trial tended to show that on 7
August 2002, Glenn and Ruth Baker were at the Methodist day-care
center in Belmont, North Carolina. The Bakers had spent the day
caring for their youngest granddaughter, Rebecca, and were waiting
for their older granddaughter, Savannah, to return from a field
trip. Several other people were also waiting in the parking lot
for their children. While they were waiting, Savannah andRebecca's father, the defendant, arrived at the day-care center in
his truck.
Defendant got out of his vehicle, greeted the Bakers and spoke
to Rebecca. Defendant then told the Bakers that he was going to
take Rebecca back to his trailer since it was his night for
visitation. Mr. Baker told defendant he could not take Rebecca,
and that if he did, he would have him arrested. Defendant got
angry and raised his voice. Rebecca started to cry, so Mrs. Baker
took the child away for a walk to comfort her. Mr. Baker and
defendant were alone, and when Baker turned around, he testified
that defendant was holding a switch-blade knife. Baker stated that
defendant “was jumping around and jumping up and down and backwards
and forwards and opening the blade and snap out and then close it
and then snap out and close it, and jumping around . . . like a
wild man.” Baker then testified that defendant told him “this
whole family is going to pay for what you have done to me, and you,
old man, are going to pay, also.” Defendant was flipping the knife
real close to Baker's face and stomach. Defendant yelled at Baker
that “[y]ou people have caused me trouble for the last time.”
Baker asked defendant to put the knife away, and defendant closed
the knife and threw it into his truck. Mrs. Baker then came back
from her walk with Rebecca, and defendant got in his truck and
drove away.
Defendant was convicted of communicating threats and was
sentenced to a term of forty-five days imprisonment. Defendant's
sentence was suspended and he was placed on supervised probationfor eighteen months. Defendant appeals.
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by denying
his motion to quash the warrant. Defendant contends that the
warrant was insufficient because it failed to allege all of the
essential elements of the offense. We are not persuaded.
“A valid warrant or indictment is an essential of
jurisdiction. . . . The warrant or indictment must charge all the
essential elements of the alleged criminal offense.” State v.
McBane, 276 N.C. 60, 65, 170 S.E.2d 913, 916 (1969) (internal
quotations omitted). As defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.1(a),
the essential elements of the offense of communicating threats are:
(1) [A willful threat] to physically injure
the person . . . ;
(2) The threat is communicated to the other
person, orally, in writing, or by any other
means;
(3) The threat is made in a manner and under
circumstances which would cause a reasonable
person to believe that the threat is likely to
be carried out; and
(4) The person threatened believes that the threat
will be carried out.
Here, the warrant charged that defendant threatened Baker by
“ORALLY STATING 'YOU PEOPLE HAVE CAUSED ME
TROUBLE FOR THE LAST TIME' and the threat was
made in a manner and under circumstances which
would cause a reasonable person to believe
that the threat was likely to be carried out
and the person threatened believed that the
threat would be carried out.”
We conclude that the warrant was sufficient to charge the offense.
Although the warrant may not have included the circumstances of the
threat, it stated that the threat was made orally, quoted the exactthreat made, stated that Baker believed the threat would be carried
out, and followed the language of the statute by stating that the
threat was made under circumstances which made it reasonable for
Baker to believe that the threat would be carried out. See McBane,
276 N.C. at 65, 170 S.E.2d at 916 (“A warrant or indictment
following substantially the language of the statute is sufficient
if and when it thereby charges the essentials of the offense in a
plain, intelligible, and explicit manner.”) (internal quotations
omitted). Thus, the “warrant contained terms of sufficient
certainty to apprise the defendant of the specific accusations
against him so as to enable him to prepare his defense and to
protect him from a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.”
State v. Frinks, 19 N.C. App. 271, 275, 198 S.E.2d 570, 572 (1973)
(internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, the trial court
properly declined to quash the warrant.
Defendant next argues that there was insufficient evidence to
support the conviction. Defendant contends that the only person who
claims to have seen him with the knife was Baker, and nobody else
heard the alleged threats. Defendant claims that if the incident
really happened, it would have been witnessed by others.
After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of
the parties, we find no error. To survive a motion to dismiss, the
State must present substantial evidence of each essential element
of the charged offense. State v. Cross, 345 N.C. 713, 716-17, 483
S.E.2d 432, 434 (1997). “'Substantial evidence is relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to supporta conclusion.'” Id. at 717, 483 S.E.2d at 434 (quoting State v.
Olson, 330 N.C. 557, 564, 411 S.E.2d 592, 595 (1992)). When
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he trial court must
consider such evidence in the light most favorable to the State,
giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference to be
drawn therefrom.” State v. Patterson, 335 N.C. 437, 450, 439
S.E.2d 578, 585 (1994)(citing State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231, 236-37,
400 S.E.2d 57, 61 (1991)).
In the instant case, Baker testified that defendant pulled out
a switch-blade knife while stating that “you, old man, are going to
pay” and Baker and his family had caused him trouble for the last
time. Baker further testified that when defendant was doing this,
he was “scared.” Although defendant denies ever threatening Baker,
defendant's arguments go to the weight of the evidence, not its
sufficiency. From Baker's testimony alone, a jury could reasonably
conclude that defendant communicated threats. Accordingly, we find
no error.
No error.
Judges BRYANT and GEER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***