State v. Applewhite, 39A22, ___ N.C. ___ (Aug. 23, 2024)

In this Cumberland County case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision finding no error in defendant’s convictions for human trafficking and promoting prostitution. The Court held that (1) defendant could be convicted of multiple counts of human trafficking for each victim under G.S. 14-43.11, and (2) the trial court erred in calculating defendant’s prior record level, but this error was not prejudicial.  

Between 2012 and 2015, defendant supplied heroin to several women, and used their addiction to manipulate them into prostitution. Defendant used online solicitations to set up customers, and he transported the women to various locations to engage in prostitution. Defendant was ultimately indicted and convicted of multiple charges for each victim, and he appealed. At the Court of Appeals, the majority found no error, but the dissenting judge “argued that human trafficking is a continuing offense because the statute criminalizing human trafficking does not define the unit of prosecution.” Slip Op. at 4. 

Taking up (1), the Supreme Court first examined the structure of G.S. 14-43.11, noting that subsection (a) provides the conduct representing an offense, and subsection (c) “clarifies that human trafficking is not a continuing offense . . . demonstrat[ing] that each distinct act of recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing or obtaining a victim can be separately prosecuted.” Id. at 7. The Court also noted the anti-merger provision in subsection (c). Having established that each act was a separate offense under the statute, the Court moved to a double jeopardy analysis, determining that defendant did not suffer “multiple punishments for the same conduct.” Id. at 12. The Court also considered the sufficiency of the indictments, as each “tracked the language of the statute but included variations for the names of the victims and the date ranges of the alleged violations.” Id. at 14. These were sufficient as “none of the indictments rendered the charged offenses uncertain” and the statute did not provide for alternative offenses, meaning defendant was given sufficient notice of the charges against him. Id. at 16. 

The Court also considered (2), the calculation of defendant’s prior record level. Defendant did not stipulate to his prior convictions, and the State did not offer any evidence that defendant’s prior federal firearm conviction was similar to a North Carolina offense. However, the Court explained it was not prejudicial, as “[defendant’s] federal firearms conviction is substantially similar to a Class G felony in North Carolina . . . [and if] remanded for resentencing, defendant’s sentence would not change.” Id. at 19. 

Justice Riggs, joined by Justice Earls, concurred in (2), but dissented from (1), and would have held “that the indictments are only sufficient to support one count of human trafficking per victim within the dates provided in the indictment.” Id. at 23.