In the Matter of: T.P
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA08-495 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 November 2008 IN THE MATTER OF: T.P. Mecklenburg County No. 07 J 820 Appeal by juvenile from orders entered 27 November 2007 and 11 December 2007 by Judge Regan Miller in Mecklenburg County Court of Appeals District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November 2008. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Ebony J. Pittman, for the State. Carol Ann Bauer, for juvenile-appellant. Slip Opinion TYSON, Judge. T.P. ( defendant ), a thirteen-year-old juvenile, appeals from orders entered adjudicating him to be delinquent and sentencing him to six months probation. We affirm. I. Background On 14 July 2007, Renee Ann Bell ( Bell ) returned to her apartment at approximately 12:30 p.m. and encountered an individual inside her kitchen. Bell yelled at the person, whom she believed was defendant, a person she had known for approximately two years. Defendant jumped through the kitchen window and fled from the scene. Bell found a cell phone and keys on her patio. Bell determined that the cell phone belonged to defendant because his name was on it. Bell returned inside her residence and found coins -2strewn over her kitchen counter. Bell also discovered her daughter s X-Box© and iPod© were missing. Bell walked to defendant s residence. door and told Bell that he had not Defendant answered the entered her residence. Defendant stated that another boy in the neighborhood was the culprit and he had loaned his cell phone to the individual. Defendant walked with Bell to the boy s residence, but no one answered the door. Bell turned over the cell phone and key chain to the police. On 13 September 2007, a juvenile petition was filed alleging defendant was delinquent by committing the criminal offenses of felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny pursuant to breaking and entering. The trial court found that defendant had committed the offenses and adjudicated defendant as delinquent and imposed a Level 1 disposition. II. Defendant appeals. Issue Defendant argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. III. A. Motion to Dismiss Standard of Review A motion to dismiss in a juvenile delinquency proceeding action is governed by the same standards as an adult criminal prosecution. In re Bass, 77 N.C. App. 110, 115, 334 S.E.2d 779, 782 (1985). In considering a juvenile s motion to dismiss, the trial court must determine whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the charged offense and whether the -3juvenile was the perpetrator of the offense. In re Rhyne, 154 N.C. App. 477, 481, 571 S.E.2d 879, 881 (2002), disc. rev. denied, 356 N.C. 672, 577 S.E.2d 637 (2003). In deciding a motion to dismiss, the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence. 587 (1984). State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 566, 313 S.E.2d 585, Contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence are to be disregarded and left for resolution by a jury. State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 99, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980). B. Analysis Generally, the credibility of identification testimony is a jury s determination, but [t]his rule does not apply [when] the only evidence identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the offense is inherently incredible because of undisputed facts, clearly established by the State s evidence, as to the physical conditions under which the alleged observation occurred. State v. Miller, 270 N.C. 726, 731, 154 S.E.2d 902, 905 (1967). however, there is a reasonable possibility of If, observation sufficient to permit subsequent identification, the credibility of the witness identification of the defendant is for the jury, and the court s doubt upon the matter will not justify granting a motion for judgment of nonsuit . . .. Id. at 732, 154 S.E.2d at 906. Here, Bell viewed the perpetrator in the midday light. Bell testified she could see clearly into her residence and had known -4defendant for approximately two years, which gave her a basis to recognize defendant. Bell s identification of defendant is corroborated by her discovery of defendant s cell phone and key chain on the patio, the path through which the perpetrator had run just moments before being encountered. A fact-finder could reasonably conclude that defendant was the perpetrator of the offenses charged. The trial court properly denied defendant s motion to dismiss. This assignment of error is overruled. V. Conclusion The trial court properly denied defendant s motion to dismiss where the State presented sufficient evidence of each essential element of the crimes committed perpetrator of said offenses. and defendant was the The trial court s disposition order is affirmed. Affirmed. Judges BRYANT and ARROWOOD concur. Report per Rule 30(e). that
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
