255 N.C. App. 364
N.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- On Jan. 4, 2015 Officer Johnson stopped Daryl Jones for speeding and observed an open, partially consumed can of beer in the center console; Jones was cited for speeding and for having an open container while alcohol remained in his system (G.S. 20-138.7(a)).
- The uniform citation’s second count read only: "WITH AN OPEN CONTAINER OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AFTER DRINKING. (G.S. 20-138.7(a))" (no explicit verb alleging that he operated/drove on a highway or that the container was in the passenger area).
- Jones was convicted in district court, appealed for a trial de novo in superior court, moved to dismiss the open-container charge for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on a "fatally defective" citation, and the trial court denied the motion; jury convicted Jones on the open-container charge.
- Majority (Lead) held the citation satisfied G.S. 15A-302(c) for use as process, and because Jones did not file a G.S. 15A-922(c) motion in district court to require a more formal pleading, he forfeited the right to challenge citation sufficiency at trial; any defect in failing to plead each element in a citation is not jurisdictional for district court.
- Dissent (Zachary, J.) argued the citation served as the State’s criminal pleading and therefore had to meet G.S. 15A-924(a)(5) (plead facts supporting every element); the citation omitted essential elements (drive on highway; open container in passenger area), so the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a citation used as the pleading must allege facts supporting every element of the misdemeanor offense | Citation need only "identify the crime charged" under G.S. 15A-302(c) when used as process; not required to plead every element with indictment-level specificity | Citation failed to allege essential elements of G.S. 20-138.7(a) (driving on a highway; open container in passenger area), so it was a fatally defective pleading depriving court of jurisdiction | Majority: citation satisfied G.S. 15A-302 and conferred district-court jurisdiction; failure to move under G.S. 15A-922(c) in district court waived the challenge to pleading sufficiency; not jurisdictional defect. Dissent: disagree — citation must meet G.S. 15A-924(a)(5) and here omitted essential elements, so no jurisdiction. |
| Whether defendant forfeited the ability to challenge the citation’s sufficiency on appeal by not requesting a more formal pleading in district court (G.S. 15A-922(c)) | Failure to file the statutory motion in district court precludes raising the sufficiency objection later; the citation met process requirements so district court acquired jurisdiction | Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time; appellate statute allows review when pleading fails to state essential elements | Majority: held defendant should have objected in district court and thus cannot collaterally attack jurisdiction on appeal; Dissent: subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and statutory appellate provisions permit review of pleading failures. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Allen, 783 S.E.2d 799 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016) (citation identifying the crime satisfied G.S. 15A-302; failure to move under G.S. 15A-922(c) precluded a sufficiency challenge)
- State v. Hunt, 582 S.E.2d 593 (N.C. 2003) (indictment must allege all essential elements under Article I, § 22)
- State v. Garcia, 553 S.E.2d 914 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) (warrant adequate as process need not satisfy pleading-element requirements unless used as the State's pleading)
- State v. Coker, 323 S.E.2d 343 (N.C. 1984) (examining citation/pleading sufficiency for impaired-driving charge)
- State v. Monroe, 292 S.E.2d 21 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982) (defendant must raise objection to trial by citation in district court; failure may preclude later attack)