State v. McRae

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. COA13-422 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 January 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Robeson County No. 09 CRS 52253 JAMAL ANTONIO MCRAE Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 3 September 2012 by Judge Thomas H. Lock in Robeson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy General Kay Linn Miller Hobart, for the State. Attorney Law Office of Glen Gerding, by Glen Gerding for defendantappellant. STEELMAN, Judge. Where the State alleged a particular felony as the basis for first-degree kidnapping, and then failed to prove the elements of that felony, the State failed to present evidence of each element of first-degree kidnapping. The trial court erred in denying defendant s motion to dismiss the kidnapping charge. -2I. Factual and Procedural Background On 26 March 2009, J.M., a 17 year-old high school student, was in her vehicle at approached her vehicle. a Burger King restaurant. Two men One of them, a black man who J.M. identified as Jamal McRae (defendant), was holding a small black handgun. At defendant s urging, J.M. moved into the passenger seat, and defendant climbed into the driver s seat. got into the back seat of the vehicle. gave defendant directions to gunpoint, defendant forced go to J.M. Another man Held at gunpoint, J.M. Fayetteville. to sexually Later, at gratify him. Defendant later forced J.M. into the trunk of the vehicle, and drove around for 30-45 minutes. J.M. found the trunk release and when she heard the speaker for a drive-through, she got out of the trunk and ran into the Burger King. Defendant was charged with one count of first-degree rape, two counts of first-degree sexual offense, one count of firstdegree kidnapping, one count of robbery with a dangerous weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit kidnapping, and one count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. At the close of State s evidence, and then the close of all of the evidence, defendant made a motion to dismiss the charges against -3him. The trial court denied these motions. guilty of all counts. factors. Defendant was found The jury also found four aggravating The trial court arrested judgment on the conviction for conspiracy to commit second-degree kidnapping, and sentenced defendant to the following aggravated active sentences: (1) 420513 months imprisonment for first-degree rape; (2) 420-513 months for two consolidated first-degree sexual offenses; (3) 144-182 months for first-degree kidnapping; (4) 120-153 months for robbery with a firearm; and (5) 36-53 months for the consolidated charges of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm. these sentences were to run consecutively. All of The trial court further ordered defendant to register as a sex offender, and to be subject to satellite-based monitoring for the rest of his life. Defendant appeals. II. Motion to Dismiss In his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree kidnapping. We agree. -4- A. Standard of Review This Court reviews the trial court s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo. State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007). Upon defendant s motion for dismissal, the question for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant s being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is properly denied. State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (quoting State v. Barnes, 334 N.C. 67, 75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (1993)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 890, 148 L. Ed. 2d 150 (2000). B. Analysis The indictment kidnapping removed alleged J.M. from charging that one defendant defendant place to with confined, another for first-degree restrained, the purpose and of facilitating the commission of a felony, larceny of a motor vehicle. evidence Defendant contends that the State failed to present of each element of this underlying felony, and therefore failed to satisfy each of the elements of the offense of first-degree kidnapping. -5The State is not required to set forth in an indictment for kidnapping the specific felony that the kidnapping facilitated. State v. Yarborough, 198 N.C. App. 22, 26, 679 S.E.2d 397, 403 (2009), cert. denied, 363 N.C. 812, 693 S.E.2d 143 (2010). However, [w]hen an indictment alleges an intent to commit a particular felony, the state must prove the particular felonious intent alleged. Id. at 27, 679 S.E.2d at 403 (quoting State v. White, 307 N.C. 42, 48, 296 S.E.2d 267, 270 (1982)). For a larceny to be a felony, the value of the goods stolen must exceed $1,000; otherwise, the larceny is a misdemeanor. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-72(a) (2011). goods stolen larceny. is an integral Therefore, the value of the element of the crime of felony See State v. Owens, 160 N.C. App. 494, 500, 586 S.E.2d 519, 523-24 (2003). In the instant case, defendant was charged with the robbery of J.M. s motor weapon charge. vehicle under the robbery with a dangerous In that indictment, the State alleged that the vehicle had a value of approximately $2,500. However, at trial, the State presented no evidence of the value of the vehicle. Thus, at the close of the its evidence, the State had failed to present evidence of intent to commit felony larceny. The charge of first-degree kidnapping explicitly stated that the kidnapping -6was for the purpose of felicitating felony larceny, not robbery with a firearm which would not have required proof of the value of the vehicle. The State failed to present evidence of all of the elements of felony larceny, which was necessary to support a conviction of first-degree kidnapping. We therefore hold that the trial court erred in denying defendant s motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree kidnapping. We reverse kidnapping, and resentencing. defendant s remand Since these conviction cases defendant does to for the not first-degree trial contest court his for other convictions on appeal, we hold that there was no error as to these convictions. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6). NO ERROR IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge DILLON concur.

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.