State v. Barr
218 N.C. App. 329
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Barr was charged with three counts of unlawfully accessing a government computer for a fraudulent purpose and two counts of aiding and abetting unlawful access, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-454.1(a)(2) and (b).
- The Lexington License Plate Agency, operated by Barr, used STARS, with title clerks entering an RACF number and a password to process title transfers.
- Lanier Motor Company conducted sixteen transfers while allegedly unlicensed; Granados, Cornatzer, Byerly, Stokes worked as title clerks at the Lexington Agency.
- A disputed procedure involved using an 'OS' out-of-state dealer code for Lanier transfers; Granados testified she had approved this with the DMV help desk, while Barr denied ever calling the help desk.
- Barr admitted to personally handling three Lanier transfers and receiving $59.20 in fees; there was testimony of others following the 'OS' procedure for Lanier after guidance from others.
- The trial court convicted Barr on four counts and suspended the sentence with probation; the judgment for one count under § 14-454.1(b) was later arrested on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: obtaining services element | State: Barr accessed STARS for transfers to obtain services. | Barr: no substantial evidence of obtaining services via the transfers. | Substantial evidence supported obtaining services. |
| Willfulness element | State: Granados’ testimony shows intentional conduct without proper authority. | Barr: evidence shows reliance on DMV guidance via Granados and others. | Willfulness supported by Granados’ testimony; no error in denial of motion to dismiss. |
| Indictment defect: duplicative § 14-454.1(a) and (b) counts | State: counts both allege aiding and abetting processing Lanier transfers. | Barr: counts violate the requirement that § 14-454.1(b) be for purposes other than those in (a). | § 14-454.1(b) count defective and arrested; convictions under (b) cannot stand. |
| Jury instruction: entrapment by estoppel | State: no error; no government official for estoppel instruction. | Barr: Granados as a government official could justify estoppel instruction. | Granados not a government official; no entrapment-by-estoppel instruction required. |
| Plain error review | State: proper preservation not required for plain error review; no reversible error. | Barr: potential instructional error warrants plain error review. | No plain error; trial court's instructions not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328 (2005) (standard for substantial evidence for elements)
- State v. Abshire, 363 N.C. 322 (2009) (definition of substantial evidence and jury weight)
- In re Adoption of Hoose, 243 N.C. 589 (1956) (definition of willfulness in criminal statutes)
- State v. Patterson, 194 N.C. App. 608 (2009) (fatal indictment defects when essential element omitted)
- Pope, 713 S.E.2d 537 (N.C. App. 2011) (entrainment by estoppel analysis and government official treatment)
- United States v. Tallmadge, 829 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1987) (entrapment by estoppel—majority vs. dissenting views on government official status)
- United States v. Billue, 994 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1993) (licensees not automatically government officials)
- United States v. Austin, 915 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1990) (license as government official not established by itself)