State v. Golder, 374 N.C. 238

Background

Kenneth Golder was indicted for obtaining property by false pretenses, accessing a government computer, altering court records, and unlicensed bail bonding based on a scheme with Wake County clerk’s employee Kevin Ballentine.
From ~2006–2012 Golder (an unlicensed bondsman) provided Ballentine lists of forfeited-bond cases; Ballentine entered motions to set aside forfeitures into the clerk’s electronic system (VCAP) without actual filings so statutory 20-day automatic set-aside occurred and sureties avoided payment.
Ballentine received about $500 per list in cash from Golder; Ballentine later cooperated with investigators and was terminated.
At trial Golder moved to dismiss after the State rested (arguing, among other things, that he did not obtain a "thing of value" and that the value did not reach $100,000). He renewed a motion at the close of all evidence but did not reassert every specificity from the first motion.
A jury convicted Golder of obtaining property by false pretenses (less than $100,000), accessing a government computer, altering records, and unlicensed bail bonding; the Court of Appeals held some sufficiency challenges were waived.
The N.C. Supreme Court allowed discretionary review to decide preservation, sufficiency of aiding-and-abetting evidence, sufficiency of "thing of value," and whether the Court of Appeals announced a new plain-error rule.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Golder's Argument	Held
Whether Golder preserved sufficiency challenges by moving to dismiss at trial	Motion to dismiss was not specific on aiding-and-abetting and later narrowed issues, so some claims were waived	A timely motion to dismiss at close of State’s case (and renewal at close of all evidence) preserves all sufficiency issues under Rule 10(a)(3)	Preserved: the Supreme Court held Rule 10(a)(3) does not require specific grounds; Golder preserved sufficiency challenges
Sufficiency to prove aiding and abetting Ballentine	Evidence insufficient because payments alone cannot prove all elements; Court of Appeals erred to the extent it treated the motion as narrowing issues	Evidence of agreement, texts directing cases, payments, and Ballentine’s acts suffice to show Golder knowingly advised/encouraged and caused the offenses	Sufficient: the Court held the State produced substantial evidence of aiding and abetting
Sufficiency to prove Golder obtained a "thing of value" under N.C.G.S. § 14-100	No "thing of value" because the scheme only removed a contingent/future liability of sureties (not present property of the State or school board)	The statute covers "other thing of value" and attempts to divert surety liability constitute a thing of value; reduction/avoidance of liability is cognizable	Sufficient: the Court held the scheme constituted obtaining (or attempting to obtain) a thing of value
Did Court of Appeals announce a new rule permitting plain-error review of unpreserved sufficiency issues	Court of Appeals purportedly applied or referenced plain error review	Golder argued Court of Appeals announced new plain-error sufficiency rule	No error: the Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals did not announce a new plain-error rule and reiterated that plain error applies to unpreserved instructional/evidentiary errors but not to preserved sufficiency challenges under Rule 10(a)(3)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Goode, 350 N.C. 247 (defining elements of aiding and abetting)
State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 658 (Rule 10(a)(3) governs preservation of sufficiency issues)
State v. Davis, 319 N.C. 620 (discusses causation in aiding-and-abetting jurisprudence)
State v. Eason, 328 N.C. 409 (explains specific-grounds requirement under a different preservation rule)
State v. Benson, 234 N.C. 263 (older precedent about specificity, overruled to the extent inconsistent with Rule 10(a)(3))
State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382 (preservation rules for constitutional claims distinguished from sufficiency challenges)
State v. Crockett, 368 N.C. 717 (trial court’s duty on motion to dismiss; substantial-evidence standard)
State v. Winkler, 368 N.C. 572 (definition of substantial evidence for denial of motion to dismiss)