An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA14-66
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 1 July 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Watauga County
No. 13 CRS 50053
STEVEN JAMES MERRELL
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 5 September 2013
by Judge Mark E. Powell in Watauga County Superior Court. Heard
in the Court of Appeals 20 May 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
J. Joy Strickland, for the State.
Mark Hayes for defendant.
ELMORE, Judge.
In September 2013, a jury found defendant guilty of failing
to comply with the sex offender registration law pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11. Defendant received an active
prison sentence of 23-37 months. Defendant appeals and raises
as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for
insufficient evidence. After careful consideration, we hold
-2-
that the trial court did not err. Furthermore, we dismiss
defendant’s second issue on appeal.
I. Facts
On 29 October 1996, judgment was entered against Steven
James Merrell (defendant) for the crime of taking indecent
liberties with a minor. As a result, defendant was required to
maintain registration on the North Carolina Sex Offender and
Public Protection Registry. Defendant appeared in the Watauga
County Sheriff’s Office on 16 October 2012 to submit a sex
offender change of address form, indicating that his new address
was at the Hospitality House, a homeless shelter, on 338 Brook
Hollow Road in Boone. Two months later, defendant signed a
verification form to confirm that he still lived there. Deputy
Seth Arthur Morrison, pursuant to his duties at the Watauga
County Sheriff’s Office, went to 338 Brook Hollow Road on 9
January 2013 to confirm that defendant, in fact, lived at that
address. After speaking with a Hospitality House employee and
making his own observations, Deputy Morrison determined that
defendant no longer resided there. On 11 February 2013,
defendant was indicted under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11 for his
purported failure to comply with sex offender registration.
-3-
At trial, defendant made a motion to dismiss at the close
of the State’s evidence for insufficient evidence and renewed
his motion at the end of all evidence. Both times, the trial
court denied defendant’s motion.
II. Analysis
a.) Address Change
First, defendant argues that the trial court erred in
denying his motion to dismiss because the evidence was
insufficient to show that he actually changed his address. We
disagree.
“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) (citation omitted). “‘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). “Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
-4-
to support a conclusion.” State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79,
265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980). “In making its determination, the
trial court must consider all evidence admitted, whether
competent or incompetent, in the light most favorable to the
State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable
inference and resolving any contradictions in its favor.” State
v. Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 223 (1994) (citation
omitted), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1135, 132 L. Ed. 2d 818 (1995).
Moreover,
[c]ircumstantial evidence may withstand a
motion to dismiss and support a conviction
even when the evidence does not rule out
every hypothesis of innocence. If the
evidence presented is circumstantial, the
court must consider whether a reasonable
inference of defendant’s guilt may be drawn
from the circumstances. Once the court
decides that a reasonable inference of
defendant’s guilt may be drawn from the
circumstances, then it is for the jury to
decide whether the facts, taken singly or in
combination, satisfy [it] beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is
actually guilty.
Fritsch, 351 N.C. at 379, 526 S.E.2d at 455 (citation and
quotation marks omitted).
A conviction for failing to comply with the change of
address requirements for a registered sex offender under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14–208.11 (2013) requires proof beyond a reasonable
-5-
doubt that: “(1) the defendant is a person required . . . to
register, (2) the defendant [willfully] changes his or her
address, and (3) the defendant [willfully] fails to notify the
last registering sheriff of the change of address, . . . not
later than the tenth day after the change[.]” State v. Worley,
198 N.C. App. 329, 334, 679 S.E.2d 857, 861 (2009) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
In defining the word “address” for the purpose of this
statute, our Supreme Court has stated that “the legislature
intended the definition of address under the registration
program to carry an ordinary meaning of describing or indicating
the location where someone lives[,] . . . a person’s residence.”
State v. Abshire, 363 N.C. 322, 330-31, 677 S.E.2d 444, 450
(2009). A location is classified as an address whether it is
“permanent or temporary” as long as it is “the actual place of
abode where [the defendant] lives[.]” Worley, 198 N.C. App. at
335, 679 S.E.2d at 862 (citations and quotations omitted).
In the case sub judice, defendant filed a sex offender
change of address form on 16 October 2012 indicating that his
new address was at the Hospitality House located on 338 Brook
Hollow Road. Deputy Morrison went to the Hospitality House on 9
January 2013 to verify whether defendant still lived there.
-6-
Initially, he could not locate defendant, and Zachary Ollis, a
shelter employee, told Deputy Morrison that although defendant
visited the shelter on occasion to eat lunch and “possibly
access other services[,]” defendant was “not . . . [a] resident
at the Hospitality House[.] . . . He has not been a resident
since November 8th, 2012. He is currently in a homeless
situation.” Ollis testified that defendant stayed “in a tent in
the woods” and “[t]here was period of time in which we didn’t
see [defendant] for an extended length of time, then it became
peppered with a day here, a day there, and for a while he was
there everyday for a couple weeks, but very sporadic. We never
really knew when to expect him[.]” Laura Bullock, an emergency
shelter service coordinator at the Hospitality House, testified
that defendant lived at the shelter from 11 October 2012 until 8
November 2012, at which time he left the shelter without
providing a forwarding address. When defendant was arrested by
Deputy Morrison, he stated that “Hospitality House would not let
[me] stay there unless it was less than 40 degrees.”
Furthermore, Hospitality House records corroborate Ollis and
Bullock’s testimony and also indicate that defendant did not
return to stay at the shelter until April 2013. Thus, although
it is unclear where defendant lived after leaving the
-7-
Hospitality House, the State provided substantial evidence for a
jury to reasonably infer from the circumstances that defendant’s
address had changed between November 2012 and March 2013. See
id. at 338, 679 S.E.2d at 863-64 (rejecting defendant’s argument
that “there are occasionally times when a registered sex
offender lacks a reportable ‘address’” and stating that “the sex
offender registration statutes operate on the premise that
everyone does, at all times, have an ‘address’ of some sort,
even if it is . . . a location under a bridge or some similar
place”).
b.) Willful Conduct
In the alternative, defendant argues that if a change of
address occurred, there was insufficient evidence to show that
1.) the address change was done willfully and 2.) his failure to
notify the last registering sheriff of his address change was
willful. We dismiss this issue on appeal.
It is well established that “where a theory argued on
appeal was not raised before the trial court, the law does not
permit parties to swap horses between courts in order to get a
better mount in the appellate courts.” State v. Holliman, 155
N.C. App. 120, 123, 573 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2002) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). A defendant who “presents a different
-8-
theory to support his motion to dismiss than that he presented
at trial” does not preserve the new argument for appellate
review. State v. Euceda-Valle, 182 N.C. App. 268, 272, 641
S.E.2d 858, 862 (2007).
In the present case, defendant made a motion to dismiss at
the close of the State’s evidence:
Your Honor, at this time the defendant would
move to dismiss at the close of State’s
evidence. We would contend that the State
has failed to show here adequate evidence
that the defendant had, in fact, moved. . .
. So, you know, regardless of other things,
the fact of the matter is there is not any
testimony in this case putting [defendant]
anywhere other than where he is supposed to
be we would contend. And [sic] would
contend that that’s not an adequate evidence
of an address change, and that therefore, he
would not have been required to have given a
notice to the Sheriff of [sic] address
change. He came in when [sic] was supposed
to. He verified his address as he’s supposed
to. Even the State's own test-- evidence was
that he was diligent in coming in and
keeping track of such things.
(emphasis added). At the close of all evidence, defendant
renewed his motion on the same grounds:
Your Honor, at the close of all the evidence
I would move to dismiss. I would just
reiterate the argument that I made earlier.
There is inadequate evidence in this case
from which a jury could find beyond a
reasonable doubt that there was an address
change, and that therefore that the
requirement would have come into play. . . .
-9-
So we would contend that there simply is
inadequate evidence of an address change,
and the jury could not find beyond a
reasonable doubt that he had changed
addresses.
(emphasis added).
Upon review of defendant’s motion to dismiss at trial, his
motion was specifically made on the basis that an actual address
change never occurred. However, defendant’s current argument on
appeal regarding the State’s presentation of insufficient
evidence relates to the absence of defendant’s willful conduct,
assuming that an address change occurred. Such a theory was
never raised in front of the trial court. Consequently, we
dismiss this argument on appeal.
III. Conclusion
In sum, the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s
motion to dismiss because the evidence was sufficient to show
that defendant actually changed his address. We dismiss
defendant’s second argument that no sufficient evidence existed
to show his willful conduct because defendant never raised this
theory during his motion to dismiss at trial.
No error, in part; dismissed, in part.
Judges McGEE and HUNTER, Robert C., concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-10-