234 N.C. App. 274
N.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- Omar McFarland was convicted by Forsyth County jury of failing to report a change of address as a sex offender under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11(a)(2).
- McFarland had signed notices acknowledging the address-change reporting rule, and he claimed homeless status left him without a fixed address.
- Evidence showed he did not reside at the Samaritan Ministries homeless shelter after October 2012, undermining his last registered address.
- A warrant for his arrest was issued after Detective Gargiulo waited several days; McFarland eventually went to the sheriff’s office and was interviewed without Miranda warnings.
- The trial court denied a pretrial suppression motion; the jury convicted McFarland, who also pled guilty to habitual felon status.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the suppression motion but remanded for the trial court to issue adequate conclusions of law on the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Void-for-vagueness as applied | McFarland argues § 14-208.11(a)(2) is vague for homeless individuals. | McFarland contends the statute fails to define 'address' for him. | Not void-for-vagueness; statute sufficiently clear as applied. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of address change | State argues proof showed a change of address via non-residence at last registered location. | McFarland claims there was no fixed new address to report. | Sufficient evidence that changing address occurred; not required to prove exact new address. |
| Suppression order lacked conclusions of law | State contends denial of suppression was properly supported by findings of fact. | McFarland argues the court failed to provide conclusions of law applying law to the facts. | Remanded for the trial court to issue adequate conclusions of law on suppression (no new trial ordered). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Worley, 198 N.C. App. 329 (2009) (address exists for homeless offenders; registration purpose served)
- State v. Abshire, 363 N.C. 322 (2009) (definition of address includes residence for purposes of statute)
- State v. Fox, 216 N.C. App. 153 (2011) (preserves vagueness challenge; standard of review for suppression)
- In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517 (1969) (due process requires reasonably definite conduct)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (statutory vagueness depends on clarity of the incriminating fact)
- Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (judicial gloss may supply clarity, but not novel construction)