State v. Horton, COA 24-29, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Jul. 2, 2024)

In this Duplin County case, defendant appealed his conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses, arguing the indictment was insufficient and the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no error. 

In June of 2020, the victim paid defendant $4,000 to complete construction work on the victim’s home. Defendant failed to complete the work, providing excuses for the delay at first, then failing to answer the victim’s phone calls. The Duplin County Sheriff’s Office investigated the matter and told defendant to return the money; defendant agreed to return the money in September 2020, but never did so. Defendant was subsequently indicted for failing to work after being paid and obtaining property by false pretenses, and the jury found him guilty of both charges. 

On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as the indictment was insufficient to charge him with obtaining property by false pretenses under G.S. 14-100 as it failed to allege the essential element of intent. The Court of Appeals noted the recent decisions State v. Singleton and State v. Stewart establishing the appropriate test for a constitutional or statutory defect, and turned to the language of G.S. 14-100 to determine if the indictment contained the essential elements of the offense. Relevant to this inquiry, the language of G.S. 14-100(b) dictates that “evidence of nonfulfillment of a contract, without more, cannot establish the essential element of intent.” However, the court explained that this subsection did not “relate[] to what is required in an indictment” but instead “relates to the sufficiency of the State’s evidence offered to prove intent at trial, not the facts to be asserted in the indictment.” Slip Op. at 6-7. Combined with the fact that an indictment for obtaining property by false pretenses “need only allege the defendant acted with the intent to defraud,” not allege all the evidence supporting that intent, the court concluded that the indictment here was sufficient. Id. at 7. 

Moving to defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent, the court acknowledged G.S. 14-100(b)’s requirement that nonfulfillment of the contract was not sufficient. The court noted that circumstantial evidence, including Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence of defendant’s scheme, supported a finding of intent in the current case. The court looked to defendant’s behavior after being paid, including the fact that he never ordered the materials from the local supply store, but used the store’s delay as an excuse, and the testimony of another member of the community that he also paid defendant for work that was never done. This evidence led the court to hold that the State offered substantial evidence of defendant’s intent.