IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA17-59
Filed: 5 September 2017
Wake County, No. 15CRS701096
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
v.
DARYL JONES, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 15 June 2016 by Judge G. Bryan
Collins, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 June
2017.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Carole
Biggers, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender James R.
Grant, for defendant-appellant.
BERGER, Judge.
Daryl Lamont Jones (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered
following his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with an open container of
alcohol while alcohol remained in his system. Defendant alleges the trial court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the citation issued to Defendant failed to state
facts establishing each of the elements of the statutory offense. We disagree.
Factual & Procedural Background
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
On January 4, 2015, Officer Donnie Johnson with the Raleigh Police
Department stopped a vehicle driven by Defendant on New Bern Avenue. Officer
Johnson estimated Defendant’s speed to be approximately sixty-five miles per hour
in a forty-five mile-per-hour zone. Officer Johnson approached Defendant’s vehicle
and noticed an open can of beer in the center console of Defendant’s vehicle. After
determining Defendant was not impaired, Officer Johnson issued Defendant a
citation for speeding and operating a vehicle with an open container of alcohol in the
car, while alcohol remained in his system. The citation read as follows:
The officer named below has probable cause to believe that
on or about Sunday, the 04 day of January, 2015 at
10:16PM in [Wake] [C]ounty . . . [Defendant] did
unlawfully and willfully OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE
ON A STREET OR HIGHWAY AT A SPEED OF 62 MPH
IN A 45 MPH ZONE. (G.S. 20-141(J1))
and on or about Sunday, the 04 day of January, 2015 at
10:16PM in [Wake] [C]ounty . . . [Defendant] did
unlawfully and willfully WITH AN OPEN CONTAINER
OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AFTER DRINKING. (G.S.
20-138.7(A))[.]
(Emphasis added). In addition, the officer’s comments contained the following:
“OPEN COORS LIGHT IN CENTER CONSOLE. HALF CONSUMED, STILL WITH
CONDENSATION ON IT. . . . PULLED OUT OF DONALD ROSS DR[.] AND SPED
UP TO 62MPH. PURSUED FOR NEARLY 1/2 MILE BEFORE SLOWING DOWN
[IN FRONT OF] WAKE MED.”
-2-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
Defendant was convicted of both offenses in District Court, and appealed the
conviction to Superior Court. At trial in Superior Court, Defendant made a motion
to dismiss the open container charge at the close of the State’s evidence, arguing that
the citation was “fatally defective” and the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Defendant
asserted that the citation failed to include an essential element of an open container
offense: operating a motor vehicle while on a public street or highway. The trial court,
citing State v. Allen, ___ N.C. App. ___, 783 S.E.2d 799 (2016), denied Defendant’s
motion. The jury found Defendant guilty of the open container charge and not guilty
of speeding. Defendant timely filed notice of appeal.
Analysis
The North Carolina Constitution states, “Except in misdemeanor cases
initiated in the District Court Division, no person shall be put to answer any criminal
charge but by indictment, presentment, or impeachment. But any person, when
represented by counsel, may, under such regulations as the General Assembly shall
prescribe, waive indictment in noncapital cases.” N.C. Const. art. I, § 22. A “valid
indictment returned by a legally constituted grand jury” is required for a court to
have jurisdiction. State v. Yoes, 271 N.C. 616, 630, 157 S.E.2d 386, 398 (1967)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
However, “[t]he General Assembly may . . . provide for other means of trial for
misdemeanors, with the right of appeal for trial de novo.” N.C. Const. art. I, § 24.
-3-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
The Superior Court Division “has original general jurisdiction throughout the
State except as otherwise provided by the General Assembly; and the General
Assembly is authorized by general law to prescribe the jurisdiction and powers of the
district courts.” State v. Wall, 271 N.C. 675, 680, 157 S.E.2d 363, 366 (1967)
(emphasis in original). The General Assembly has indeed delineated the jurisdiction
and procedure for trial of misdemeanors in the district courts, and provided for the
right of appeal of those matters for trial de novo in the superior courts.
North Carolina General Statute § 7A-270 (2015) provides that “[g]eneral
jurisdiction for the trial of criminal actions is vested in the superior court and the
district court divisions of the General Court of Justice.” The district court division
has “exclusive, original jurisdiction” of misdemeanors, N.C. Gen Stat. § 7A-272(a)
(2015), while superior courts, with limited exception, have “exclusive, original
jurisdiction over all criminal actions not assigned to the district court division[.]”
N.C. Gen Stat. § 7A-271(a) (2015).
Defendant was issued a citation for misdemeanor offenses and directed to
appear in Wake County District Court. A citation directs a defendant to “appear in
court and answer a misdemeanor or infraction charge or charges.” N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 15A-302(a) (2015). A law enforcement officer may issue a citation when he has
probable cause to believe the individual cited committed an infraction or
-4-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
misdemeanor offense. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-302(b) (2015). For a citation to be valid,
it must:
(1) Identify the crime charged, including the date, and
where material, identify the property and other persons
involved,
(2) Contain the name and address of the person cited, or
other identification if that cannot be ascertained,
(3) Identify the officer issuing the citation, and
(4) Cite the person . . . to appear in a designated court, at a
designated time and date.
N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-302(c) (2015).
The official commentary to Article 49, entitled Pleadings and Joinder, contains
a primer on various criminal pleadings in North Carolina. N.C. Gen. Stat. ch. 15A,
art. 49 official commentary (2015). The commentary notes that misdemeanor cases
initiated by warrant or criminal summons require a finding of probable cause and a
“statement of the crime.” Id. It is the “statement of the crime” set forth in warrants
and criminal summons that constitutes the “pleading” for misdemeanor criminal
cases. Id. Citations, however, are treated differently. According to the commentary,
a citation simply needs to identify the crime charged.
It should be noted that the citation (G.S. 15A-302) requires
only that the crime be “identified,” less than is required in
the other processes. This is a reasonable difference, since
it will be prepared by an officer on the scene. It still may
be used as the pleading, but rather than get into sufficiency
of the pleading in such a case the Commission simply gives
the defendant the right to object and require a more formal
pleading. G.S. 15A-922(c).
-5-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
Id. (emphasis added). See also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-302 official commentary (2015)
(“[I]n certain circumstances the citation can serve as the pleading upon which trial is
based. See G.S. 15A-922 . . . .” (emphasis added)).
To the extent there was a deficiency in the citation, Defendant had the right to
object to trial on the citation by filing a motion:
A defendant charged in a citation with a criminal offense
may by appropriate motion require that the offense be
charged in a new pleading. The prosecutor must then file a
statement of charges unless it appears that a criminal
summons or a warrant for arrest should be secured in order
to insure the attendance of the defendant, and in addition
serve as the new pleading.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §15A-922(c) (2015). The statement of charges, summons, or warrant
may then be subjected to the scrutiny argued for by Defendant. However, a defendant
must file his or her objection to the citation in the district court division.
The defendant in State v. Allen, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 783 S.E.2d 799, 799
(2016) was charged by citation with, among other offenses, transporting an open
container of alcohol. Defendant was convicted by a jury and, on appeal, he argued
that the citation failed to allege all essential elements of the offense, depriving the
court of jurisdiction. Id. at ___, 783 S.E.2d at 800. This Court held that because the
citation put the defendant on notice and met the statutory requirements of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-302, his failure to object to the citation pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-
-6-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
922(c) precluded his challenge to jurisdiction. Id. at ___, 783 S.E.2d at 801. The
Court also stated:
We acknowledge defendant is allowed to challenge
jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. See N.C. R. App. P.
10(a)(1) (2015) ("[W]hether the court had jurisdiction over
the subject matter, and whether a criminal charge is
sufficient in law, may be made the basis of an issue
presented on appeal."). However, the ability to raise a
jurisdictional challenge at any time does not ensure that
the jurisdictional challenge has merit.
Defendant argues that "[a] citation, like a warrant or an
indictment, may serve as a pleading in a criminal case and
must therefore allege lucidly and accurately all the
essential elements of the [crime] . . . charged." However,
defendant fails to direct our attention to any opinion from
this Court or other authority equating the requirements for
a valid citation with those of a valid indictment, and we
find none. Compare id. § 15A-302(c) ("The citation must: (1)
Identify the crime charged, including the date, and where
material, identify the property and other persons
involved[.]"), with id. § 15A-644(a)(3) ("An indictment must
contain: . . . (3) Criminal charges pleaded as provided in
Article 49 of [Chapter 15A], Pleadings and Joinder[.]"); see
also State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 267, 582 S.E.2d 593, 600
(2003) ("An indictment, as referred to in [N.C. Const. art.
I, § 22] . . . , is a written accusation of a crime drawn up by
the public prosecuting attorney and submitted to the grand
jury, and by them found and presented on oath or
affirmation as a true bill. To be sufficient under our
Constitution, an indictment must allege lucidly and
accurately all the essential elements of the offense
endeavored to be charged." (citation and quotation marks
omitted)); State v. Jones, 157 N.C. App. 472, 477, 579
S.E.2d 408, 411 (2003) ("[A] citation is not an
indictment[.]").
Id. at ___, 783 S.E.2d at 800-01.
-7-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
Similarly, in State v. Monroe, 57 N.C. App. 597, 598, 292 S.E.2d 21, 21-22
(1982), the defendant argued that a jurisdictional defect existed for his charges of
driving under the influence and driving while license revoked. Defendant filed a
motion pursuant to Section 15A-922(c) in Superior Court. Id. This Court held that
[h]ad defendant filed his motion prior to his trial at district
court, the statute would indeed have precluded his trial on
the citation alone. . . . [But] [o]nce jurisdiction had been
established and defendant had been tried in district court,
therefore, he was no longer in a position to assert his
statutory right to object to trial on citation when he
appealed to superior court.
Id. at 598-99, 292 S.E.2d at 22. See also State v. Phillips, 149 N.C. App. 310, 318, 560
S.E.2d 852, 857 (“[The] defendant’s objection to trial by citation must be asserted in
the court of original jurisdiction, in this case, the district court.” (citation omitted)),
appeal dismissed, 355 N.C. 499, 564 S.E.2d 230 (2002).
Defendant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him for a violation
of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.7(a), and asserts that the citation charging him failed to
allege an essential element of that statutory offense. However, the citation issued to
Defendant by Officer Johnson complied with the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-
302(c). The citation properly identified the crime of having an open container of
alcohol in the car while alcohol remained in his system, charged by citing N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 20-138.7(a) and stating Defendant had an open container of alcohol after
drinking. Identifying a crime charged does not require a hyper-technical assertion of
-8-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
each element of an offense, nor does it require the specificity of a “statement of the
crime” necessary to issue a warrant or criminal summons.
However, a citation charging the offense of driving with an open container after
consuming must include additional information to be considered sufficient.
(g) Pleading. ― In any prosecution for a violation of
subsection (a) of this section, the pleading is sufficient if it
states the time and place of the alleged offense in the usual
form and charges that the defendant drove a motor vehicle
on a highway or the right-of-way of a highway with an open
container of alcoholic beverage after drinking.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.7(g) (2015) (emphasis added). Pursuant to the Official
Commentary to Article 49, issues concerning the sufficiency of pleadings in citations
are to be addressed through a Section 15A-922(c) motion.
The citation at issue here satisfied the requirements of Section 15A-302,
establishing jurisdiction in the District Court division. Defendant’s concern
regarding sufficiency of the offense charged in the citation required an objection to
trial on the citation at the district court level. Because Defendant failed to file a
motion pursuant to Section 15A-922(c), he was no longer in a position to assert his
statutory right to object to trial on citation, or to the sufficiency of the allegations set
forth in Section 20-138.7(g).
Even if, assuming arguendo, Defendant was not required to object, the failure
to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924(a)(5) by neglecting to allege facts supporting
every element of an offense in a citation is not a jurisdictional defect.
-9-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
Our state constitution requires an indictment to allege each element as a
prerequisite of the superior court’s jurisdiction. “Except in misdemeanor cases
initiated in the District Court Division, no person shall be put to answer any criminal
charge but by indictment, presentment, or impeachment.” N.C. Const. art. I, § 22.
Therefore, the constitution does not so require for a citation charging a misdemeanor
to allege each element as a prerequisite of the district court’s jurisdiction.
Our Supreme Court has held that “[every defendant] charged with a criminal
offense has a right to the decision of twenty-four of his fellow-citizens upon the
question of his guilt: first, by a grand jury [of twelve], and secondly, by a petit jury [of
twelve][.]” State v. Barker, 107 N.C. 913, 918, 12 S.E. 115, 117 (1890) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). That is, where the prosecutor elects to use an indictment,
the superior court does not obtain jurisdiction to try a defendant unless a grand jury
of twelve has first determined that probable cause exists that the defendant
committed the crime. See State v. Abraham, 338 N.C. 315, 339, 451 S.E.2d 131, 143
(1994) (“It is well settled that a valid bill of indictment is essential to the jurisdiction
of the trial court to try an accused for a felony.” (citation and quotation marks
omitted)). See also State v. Thomas, 236 N.C. 454, 458-61, 73 S.E.2d 283, 286-88
(1952). Further, our Supreme Court has instructed that “[t]o be sufficient under our
Constitution, an indictment must allege lucidly and accurately all the essential
elements of the offense endeavored to be charged.” State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 267,
- 10 -
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
582 S.E.2d 593, 600, cert. denied, 539 U.S. 985, 156 L. Ed. 2d 702 (2003) (citations
and quotation marks omitted).
In sum, if an indictment is returned by a grand jury without referencing each
element, it cannot be said that the grand jury found probable cause that the
defendant committed the crime charged – which, under our constitution where an
indictment is used, is required to empower the superior court to try the defendant.
As mentioned above, citations differ from indictments. Our constitution does
not require a grand jury to make a probable cause determination for misdemeanors
tried in district court as a jurisdictional prerequisite. Therefore, any failure of a law
enforcement officer to include each element of the crime in a citation is not fatal to
the district court’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the record establishes that Defendant was
apprised of the charge against him and would not be subject to double jeopardy.
Defendant’s contention of error is overruled.
NO ERROR.
Judge DILLON concurs.
Judge ZACHARY dissents with separate opinion.
- 11 -
No. COA 17-59 - State v. Jones
ZACHARY, Judge, dissenting:
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction of operating
a motor vehicle with an open container of alcohol in the passenger area of his car
while alcohol remained in his system. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the charge because the citation that the
State used as the criminal pleading did not state facts supporting the elements of this
criminal offense, as required by long-standing appellate jurisprudence and the
express language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924 (2015). The majority opinion holds
that a citation is not required to comply with the statutory requirements for all
criminal pleadings, but need only meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-
302 (2015) for use of a citation as a form of process to secure defendant’s attendance
in court. Because I disagree with this conclusion, I must respectfully dissent.
Background
On 4 January 2015, a Raleigh police officer stopped a car driven by defendant,
based upon the officer’s estimation that defendant was exceeding the legal speed
limit. When the officer approached defendant’s car, he observed an open can of beer
in the center console next to defendant. After determining that defendant was not
impaired, the officer issued a citation that purported to charge defendant with
speeding and with operating a motor vehicle with an open container of alcohol while
alcohol remained in his system. Defendant was convicted of both offenses in district
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
court and appealed to superior court for a trial de novo, where the jury returned a
verdict finding defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle with an open container
of alcohol in the passenger area of the car with alcohol remaining in his system.
Defendant noted an appeal to this Court.
Standard of Review
Defendant argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try
him for a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.7(a) (2015), on the grounds that the
citation that purported to charge him with this offense did not meet the requirements
for a valid criminal pleading. “A facially invalid indictment deprives the trial court of
jurisdiction to enter judgment in a criminal case.” State v. Haddock, 191 N.C. App.
474, 476, 664 S.E.2d 339, 342 (2008) (citations omitted). “The subject matter
jurisdiction of the trial court is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo
on appeal.” State v. Barnett, 223 N.C. App. 65, 68, 733 S.E.2d 95, 98 (2012) (citation
omitted). “Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely
substitutes its own judgment for that of the [trial court].” In re Appeal of The Greens
of Pine Glen Ltd. P’ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003) (citation
omitted).
Preservation of Issue for Appellate Review
The majority opinion emphasizes the district court’s general jurisdiction over
the trial of misdemeanors, and the jurisdiction of our superior courts to conduct a
trial de novo upon a criminal defendant’s appeal from district court. Defendant has
-2-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
not challenged the trial court’s general jurisdiction. However, “a trial court’s general
jurisdiction over the type of proceeding or over the parties does not confer jurisdiction
over the specific action.” In re McKinney, 158 N.C. App. 441, 447, 581 S.E.2d 793, 797
(2003) (citation omitted).
The majority opinion also discusses N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-952(c) (2015), which
provides that a “defendant charged in a citation with a criminal offense may by
appropriate motion require that the offense be charged in a new pleading.” The
majority opinion appears to hold that by failing to file such a motion in district court,
defendant has lost the right to challenge the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
The majority opinion notes that defendant “contends [that] the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to try him . . . when the citation charging him failed to allege an essential
element” of the charged offense. The opinion then holds that “Defendant was
required to raise any objection to trial on the citation at the district court level.
Defendant’s failure to object to proceeding by citation established jurisdiction in
district court.” This indicates that the majority opinion is holding that defendant has
waived review of the issue of the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to try him.
However, it is axiomatic that:
A court must have subject matter jurisdiction in order to
decide a case. . . . As a result, subject matter jurisdiction may
be raised at any time, whether at trial or on appeal, ex mero
motu. “A party may not waive jurisdiction, and a court has
inherent power to inquire into, and determine, whether it has
jurisdiction and to dismiss an action ex mero motu when
subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.”
-3-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
State v. Sellers, __ N.C. App. __, __, 789 S.E.2d 459, 465 (2016) (quoting Reece v.
Forga, 138 N.C. App. 703, 705, 531 S.E.2d 881, 882 (2000) (other citations omitted)
(emphasis added). Moreover, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1446(d) (2015) specifically
provides that:
Errors based upon any of the following grounds, which are
asserted to have occurred, may be the subject of appellate
review even though no objection, exception or motion has been
made in the trial division. . . . (4) The pleading fails to state
essential elements of an alleged violation, as required by G.S.
15A-924(a)(5).
To the extent that the majority opinion holds that defendant has waived his
right to seek review of the issue of the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction, I
believe this holding to be inconsistent with long-standing legal principles of our
jurisprudence.
Requirements for a Valid Criminal Pleading in North Carolina
Defendant was charged in a two-count citation with two separate offenses.
Defendant has not challenged the validity of the charge of speeding, for which the
jury found him not guilty. The pivotal issue in this case is whether the second count
of the citation met the requirements for a valid criminal pleading, thus giving the
trial court subject matter jurisdiction over the charge of driving a motor vehicle on a
public highway with an open container of alcohol in the passenger area of the car
while alcohol remained in defendant’s system. I would hold that, upon application of
the plain language of the statutes governing criminal pleadings in North Carolina,
the citation is invalid.
-4-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
A criminal pleading is “[a]n indictment, information, or complaint by which the
government begins a criminal prosecution.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8th Edn. 1190.
The State charges a criminal offense in a pleading. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-921 (2015)
sets out the documents that may be used as the State’s pleading in a criminal case in
North Carolina, and states that “the following may serve as pleadings of the State in
criminal cases:
(1) Citation.
(2) Criminal summons.
(3) Warrant for arrest.
(4) Magistrate’s order . . . after arrest without warrant.
(5) Statement of charges.
(6) Information.
(7) Indictment.
The general requirements for all criminal pleadings are set out in N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-924(a) (2015), which states in relevant part that:
(a) A criminal pleading must contain:
(1) The name or other identification of the defendant[.]
(2) A separate count addressed to each offense charged, but
allegations in one count may be incorporated by reference in
another count.
(3) A statement or cross reference in each count indicating
that the offense charged therein was committed in a
designated county.
(4) A statement or cross reference in each count indicating
that the offense charged was committed on, or on or about, a
designated date[.]
(5) A plain and concise factual statement in each count which,
without allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserts facts
supporting every element of a criminal offense and the
defendant’s commission thereof with sufficient precision
clearly to apprise the defendant or defendants of the conduct
which is the subject of the accusation. . . .
-5-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
(6) For each count a citation of any applicable statute, rule,
regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law alleged therein
to have been violated. . . .
It is well established that “[N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 15A-924 codifies the
requirements of a criminal pleading. A criminal pleading must contain, inter alia . .
. ‘[a] plain and concise factual statement in each count which . . . asserts facts
supporting every element of a criminal offense and the defendant’s commission
thereof[.]’ ” State v. Saults, 294 N.C. 722, 724, 242 S.E.2d 801, 803-04 (1978). The
purpose of this requirement is:
(1) [to provide] such certainty in the statement of the
accusation as will identify the offense with which the accused
is sought to be charged; (2) to protect the accused from being
twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; (3) to enable the
accused to prepare for trial; and (4) to enable the court, on
conviction or plea of nolo contendere or guilty to pronounce
sentence according to the rights of the case.
State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 327, 77 S.E.2d 917, 919 (1953). Thus, “an indictment is
sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a
defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to
plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.”
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 41 L. Ed. 2d 590, 620 (1974).
“This constitutional mandate, however, merely affords a defendant the right to
be charged by a lucid prosecutive statement which factually particularizes the
essential elements of the specified offense. See G.S. 15A-924(a)(5)[.]” State v.
Sturdivant, 304 N.C. 293, 309, 283 S.E.2d 719, 730 (1981). “N.C.G.S. § 15A-924 does
-6-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
not require that an indictment contain any information beyond the specific facts that
support the elements of the crime.” State v. Rambert, 341 N.C. 173, 176, 459 S.E.2d
510, 512 (1995).
“An indictment is invalid and prevents the trial court from acquiring
jurisdiction over the charged offense if [it] ‘fails to state some essential and necessary
element of the offense of which the defendant is found guilty.’ ” State v. McNeil, 209
N.C. App. 654, 658, 707 S.E.2d 674, 679 (2011) (quoting State v. Wilson, 128 N.C.
App. 688, 691, 497 S.E.2d 416, 419 (1998)). “Lack of jurisdiction in the trial court due
to a fatally defective indictment requires ‘the appellate court . . . to arrest judgment
or vacate any order entered without authority.’ ” State v. Galloway, 226 N.C. App.
100, 103, 738 S.E.2d 412, 414 (2013) (quoting State v. Petersilie, 334 N.C. 169, 175,
432 S.E.2d 832, 836 (1993)).
The vast majority of our appellate cases addressing the sufficiency of a criminal
pleading arise in the context of indictments. However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924
states the general requirement that a “criminal pleading” must contain certain
information, and does not limit its application to a subset of the types of criminal
pleadings listed in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-921. In addition, the requirement that a
criminal pleading must state facts supporting the elements of the charged offense has
been addressed in cases in which a defendant’s conviction was based on a criminal
pleading other than an indictment. See, e.g., State v. Coker, 312 N.C. 432, 434, 323
S.E.2d 343, 346 (1984) (addressing the sufficiency of the factual allegations in a
-7-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
citation charging the defendant with impaired driving), State v. Balance, 218 N.C.
App. 202, 720 S.E.2d 856 (2012) (applying the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-
924(a) to a misdemeanor statement of charges), and State v. Camp, 59 N.C. App. 38,
41-42, 295 S.E.2d 766, 768 (1982) (applying requirement that a criminal pleading
must state facts supporting the elements of the charged offense to a warrant).
In sum, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-921 expressly states that a citation may serve
as the State’s pleading in a criminal case, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924(a)(5)
requires that every criminal pleading must contain facts supporting each of the
elements of the criminal offense with which the defendant is charged. There do not
appear to be any appellate cases holding that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924 does not
apply to a citation used as the pleading in a criminal case. Under the plain language
of these statutes, when a citation is used by the State as the pleading in a criminal
case, it must -- like any other criminal pleading -- allege facts that support the
elements of the offense with which the defendant is charged.
Discussion
Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with an open container
of alcohol in the passenger area of the car while alcohol remained in his system, in
violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.7(a) (2015). This statute provides that “[n]o
person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway or the right-of-way of a highway: (1)
While there is an alcoholic beverage in the passenger area in other than the unopened
manufacturer’s original container; and (2) While the driver is consuming alcohol or
-8-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
while alcohol remains in the driver’s body.” The elements of this offense are that the
defendant (1) drove a motor vehicle on a highway or right-of-way of a highway, (2)
with an open container of an alcoholic beverage in the passenger area of the car, (3)
while alcohol remained in the defendant’s body.
The charging language of the citation issued in order to compel defendant’s
attendance in court states the following:
The officer named below has probable cause to believe that on
or about Sunday, the 04 day of January 2015 at 10:16 p.m. in
the county named above you did unlawfully and willfully
OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON A STREET OR
HIGHWAY AT A SPEED OF 62 MPH IN A 45 MPH ZONE.
(G.S. 20-141(J1))
and on or about Sunday, the 04 day of January 2015 at 10:16
p.m. in the county named above you did unlawfully and
willfully
WITH AN OPEN CONTAINER OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE AFTER DRINKING. (G.S. 20-138.7(a))
(Underlined script indicates information added by the law
enforcement officer on a Uniform Citation Form).
The citation thus charges that on Sunday, 4 January 2015, defendant “did
unlawfully and willfully WITH AN OPEN CONTAINER OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE AFTER DRINKING. (G.S. 20-138.7(a)).” This sentence fragment fails to
include a verb stating what defendant did “with an open container of alcohol.”
Specifically, it fails to allege that defendant operated a motor vehicle on a public road
or highway, or even that he “drove.” Nor does the citation allege that the open
container of alcohol was in the passenger area of defendant’s car. The citation fails
-9-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
to allege facts that would support two of the three elements of the offense: that
defendant drove on a public highway, or that he had an open container of alcohol in
the passenger area of the car. As a result, the citation did not comply with the
requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924 and did not confer subject matter
jurisdiction upon the trial court. The majority opinion reaches the contrary conclusion
and holds that the citation was valid. After careful consideration of the reasoning
supporting this holding, I am unable to agree.
Firstly, in its assessment of the validity of the citation, the majority includes
notes made by the charging officer in a box below the charging language with the
heading “Officer’s Comments.” No legal basis for including this language is set out
in the opinion. Moreover, the “Officer’s Comments” do not state that defendant was
driving a motor vehicle upon a public road.
Secondly, the majority opinion appears to adopt the State’s argument that we
should read the language of the first count, which alleges that defendant operated a
motor vehicle at a speed in excess of the legal speed limit, and then add only the word
“and” from the second count (which alleges that “and on or about Sunday, the 04 day
of January 2015 at 10:16 PM in the county named above you did unlawfully and
willfully”), and by this means arrive at a reading of the citation stating that defendant
“operated a motor vehicle” at an excessive speed “and” (omitting the words “on or
about Sunday, the 04 day of January 2015 at 10:16 PM in the county named above
you did unlawfully and willfully”) “with an open container of alcoholic beverage after
-10-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
drinking.” However, no authority is cited in support of this procedure, and “[i]t is
settled law that each count of an indictment containing several counts should be
complete in itself.” State v. Moses, 154 N.C. App. 332, 336, 572 S.E.2d 223, 226 (2002)
(internal quotation omitted). By the same measure, each count of a criminal pleading,
such as a citation, containing several counts should be complete in itself.
The holding of the majority opinion that the citation issued in this case was
valid is based primarily upon the language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-302 (2015). The
opinion states that “[f]or a citation to be valid, it must contain” the information
specified in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-302(b). The flaw in this argument is that N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-302 is a statute contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A, Article 17, entitled
“Criminal Process,” which addresses the use of a citation as criminal process, and not
as a pleading. The majority fails to acknowledge this issue or to articulate a basis for
applying the requirements for use of a citation as a form of process, rather than the
specific statutory criteria for use of a citation as a criminal pleading.
The Official Commentary to Article 17 states that “[c]riminal process includes
the citation, criminal summons, warrant for arrest, and order for arrest. They all
serve the function of requiring a person to come to court.” This language is consistent
with the definition of “criminal process” as “[a] process (such as an arrest warrant)
that issues to compel a person to answer for a crime.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 8th
Edn. 1242. The statutes in Article 17 govern the requirements for issuance of process
-11-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
requiring a defendant to appear in court and answer a criminal charge. For example,
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-301 (2015) states that:
(a)(2) “Criminal process, other than a citation, must be signed
and dated by the justice, judge, magistrate, or clerk who issues
it. The citation must be signed and dated by the law-
enforcement officer who issues it.”
(b) Warrants for arrest and orders for arrest must be directed
to a particular officer, a class of officers, or a combination
thereof, having authority and territorial jurisdiction to
execute the process. A criminal summons must be directed to
the person summoned to appear[.] . . . The citation must be
directed to the person cited to appear.
Similarly, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-302 sets out the requirements for the use of a
citation as criminal process:
(a) A citation is a directive, issued by a law enforcement officer
or other person authorized by statute, that a person appear in
court and answer a misdemeanor or infraction charge or
charges. (emphasis added).
...
(c) Contents. -- The citation must:
(1) Identify the crime charged, including the date, and where
material, identify the property and other persons involved,
(2) Contain the name and address of the person cited, or other
identification if that cannot be ascertained,
(3) Identify the officer issuing the citation, and
(4) Cite the person to whom issued to appear in a designated
court, at a designated time and date.
-12-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
(d) A copy of the citation shall be delivered to the person cited
who may sign a receipt on the original which shall thereafter
be filed with the clerk by the officer. . . .
The functions of a criminal pleading, which are discussed above, are
fundamentally different from the purpose of criminal process, which is simply to
secure the defendant’s attendance in court. Notably, an indictment, which is the
primary form of criminal pleading, is not included as a permissible type of criminal
process. The majority opinion holds that “[f]or a citation to be valid” it need only
comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-302(c). However, the majority offers no basis upon
which to ignore the express language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924, which governs the
requirements for all criminal pleadings, in favor of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-302, which
sets out the requirements for the use of a citation as criminal process.
I conclude that equating the requirements for process with those applicable to
pleadings is a classic “apples to oranges” comparison. This position finds support in
the language of the relevant statutes and in this Court’s opinion in State v. Garcia,
146 N.C. App. 745, 553 S.E.2d 914 (2001). In Garcia, the defendant was served with
an arrest warrant charging him with assault. On appeal, the defendant argued that
the arrest warrant, although adequate to compel him to appear in court, failed to
satisfy the requirements for a criminal pleading. We agreed, and held that:
A warrant for an arrest “must contain a statement of the crime
of which the person to be arrested is accused. No warrant for
arrest . . . is invalid because of any technicality of pleading if
the statement is sufficient to identify the crime.” N.C.G.S. §
15A-304(c) (1999). If the arrest warrant, however, is used as a
-13-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
criminal pleading pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-921(3), it
must contain “[a] plain and concise factual statement . . .
which . . . asserts facts supporting every element of [the]
criminal offense and the defendant’s commission thereof with
sufficient precision clearly to apprise the defendant . . . of the
conduct which is the subject of the accusation.” N.C.G.S. §
15A-924(a)(5) (1999).
Garcia, 146 N.C. App. at 746, 553 S.E.2d at 915 (emphasis added).
Given that (1) when used as criminal process, both warrants and citations must
“identify the crime” charged; (2) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-921 includes both warrants
and citations as valid criminal pleadings; and (3) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924 requires
that all criminal pleadings state facts supporting the elements of the offense with
which the defendant is charged, I would conclude that the holding of Garcia is equally
applicable to the instant case. I cannot agree that the criminal process requirements
of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-302, rather than the pleading requirements of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-924, should determine the resolution of this case. See also State v. Cook,
272 N.C. 728, 731, 158 S.E.2d 820, 822 (1968) (“[T]he warrant fails to allege an
essential element of the offense[.] . . . This defect is not cured by reference in the
warrant to the statute.”).
The majority opinion also notes this Court’s opinion in State v. Allen, __ N.C.
App. __, 783 S.E.2d 799 (2016). In Allen, the defendant was charged in a citation
with a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 18B-401(a) (2015), which makes it unlawful “for
a person to transport fortified wine or spirituous liquor in the passenger area of a
motor vehicle in other than the manufacturer’s unopened original container.” On
-14-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him, on
the grounds that the charging citation failed to allege an essential element of the
offense. This Court held that the citation complied with the requirement of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-302 that the citation “[i]dentify the crime charged.” Apparently the
charging citation was also used as the State’s criminal pleading in Allen. However,
Allen did not cite N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924(b)(5) or address the requirements of that
statute for all criminal pleadings. As a result, Allen is distinguishable from the
present case.
Conclusion
The majority opinion holds that when a citation is used by the State as a
criminal pleading, the law “does not require a hyper-technical assertion of each
element of an offense[.]” However, our legislature enacted N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-921
and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924, and thereby determined the types of documents that
may serve as a criminal pleading as well as the level of specificity required. These
statutes plainly state that a citation may serve as the State’s criminal pleading and
that criminal pleadings must state facts supporting the elements of the charged
offense. “This policy decision is within the legislature’s purview,” Hest Techs., Inc. v.
State of N.C. ex rel. Perdue, 366 N.C. 289, 303, 749 S.E.2d 429, 439 (2012), and
“[w]hen the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be given effect
and its clear meaning may not be evaded . . . under the guise of construction.” State
-15-
STATE V. JONES
ZACHARY, J., dissenting
v. Bates, 348 N.C. 29, 34-35, 497 S.E.2d 276, 279 (1998) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
For the reasons discussed above, I conclude that the citation charging that
defendant “unlawfully and willfully with an open container of alcoholic beverage after
drinking” failed to state facts that would support the elements of the offense of
operating a motor vehicle with an open container of alcohol in the passenger area of
the car while alcohol remained in the defendant’s system. Pursuant to N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-924(a)(5), all criminal pleadings, including citations, must allege facts
that establish every element of the offense with which the defendant is charged. For
this reason, I cannot agree with the holding of the majority opinion and must
respectfully dissent.
-16-