State v. Brice, 370 N.C. 244

Background

Sandra Meshell Brice was indicted by a Catawba County grand jury for the felony of habitual misdemeanor larceny (single-count indictment alleging the substantive larceny and four prior larceny convictions).
Before opening statements, outside the jury’s presence, Brice admitted to the four prior convictions after a colloquy with the trial court.
A jury convicted Brice of habitual misdemeanor larceny; the trial court entered judgment and suspended active imprisonment, imposing probation and other conditions.
On appeal the Court of Appeals vacated the felony conviction and remanded for resentencing on misdemeanor larceny, holding the indictment failed to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-928’s separate-indictment requirement and that defect was jurisdictional.
The State sought discretionary review, arguing the defect was a non-jurisdictional formality and harmless because Brice admitted the priors and was not prejudiced.
The North Carolina Supreme Court held the separate-indictment requirement of § 15A-928 is not jurisdictional, Brice waived the defect by not raising it at trial, and reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial-court judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether noncompliance with N.C.G.S. § 15A-928(b) (separate indictment/count for priors) is a jurisdictional defect that may be raised for the first time on appeal	State: The defect is a non-jurisdictional formality; indictment alleged all essential elements; no prejudice so no reversible error	Brice: § 15A-928 is mandatory to give notice and avoid prejudice; noncompliance is fatal and jurisdictional	The Court: § 15A-928’s separate-indictment requirement is not jurisdictional; claim not preserved at trial and therefore waived; reversed Court of Appeals
Whether the indictment nevertheless satisfied constitutional/facial pleading requirements	State: The indictment alleged all essential elements of habitual misdemeanor larceny, so it sufficed under § 15A-924 and governing precedent	Brice: The merging of priors with substantive count deprived her of statutory protections and adequate notice	The Court: Indictment alleged the essential elements and thus conferred jurisdiction under traditional facial-validity rules
Whether admission of priors outside presence of jury renders any § 15A-928 defect harmless	State: Brice admitted the priors; arraignment on priors occurred; jury never learned of priors—no prejudice	Brice: Formal statutory procedures protect against prejudice and must be followed	The Court: Given the admission and procedures followed, the policies behind § 15A-928 were met and the defect did not require reversal when not preserved
Whether Court of Appeals precedent (Williams) should control	State: Williams was wrongly decided and should not be applied to automatically treat § 15A-928 noncompliance as jurisdictional	Brice: Prior appellate decisions support treating § 15A-928 as mandatory	The Court: Overruled Williams to the extent it treated the separate-indictment requirement as jurisdictional

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jernigan, 118 N.C. App. 240, 455 S.E.2d 163 (N.C. Ct. App.) (harmless-error treatment where defendant stipulated to priors)
State v. Williams, 153 N.C. App. 192, 568 S.E.2d 890 (N.C. Ct. App.) (prior Court of Appeals decision treating separate-indictment noncompliance as jurisdictional; overruled here)
State v. Bowden, 272 N.C. 481, 158 S.E.2d 493 (N.C.) (indictment sufficiency: must allege essential elements to apprise defendant)
State v. House, 295 N.C. 189, 244 S.E.2d 654 (N.C.) (‘‘must’’ in statute not always jurisdictional; avoid form over substance)
State v. Jackson, 306 N.C. 642, 295 S.E.2d 383 (N.C.) (discussion of strict following of § 15A-928 when it applies)
State v. Ray, 274 N.C. 556, 164 S.E.2d 457 (N.C.) (indictment is condition precedent to Superior Court jurisdiction)
State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481, 528 S.E.2d 326 (N.C.) (facial-indictment challenges may be raised at any time)