State v. Melton, 371 N.C. 750

Defendant negotiated and met with an acquaintance (Sorkin) and an undercover officer posing as a hitman after expressing a desire to stop further child‑custody litigation with his ex‑wife.
At the meeting defendant showed $2,500, later delivered $10,000, provided the ex‑wife’s name, address, phone, photo, car description, her daughter’s school and drop‑off times, and discussed logistics for the killing and payment via a temporary phone.
Defendant was arrested after leaving the undercover officer’s car; the undercover officer never intended to kill the victim.
Indicted for attempted first‑degree murder and solicitation to commit first‑degree murder; trial court denied defendant’s motions to dismiss and jury convicted on both counts.
Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning the overt acts (hiring, planning, payment, and supplying victim details) were sufficient for attempt; it also held no double jeopardy violation in convicting for both solicitation and attempt.
The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed as to attempted murder, holding the evidence showed solicitation but not the overt act required for attempt under NC common-law definitions; the Court did not resolve the double jeopardy claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted first‑degree murder	State: defendant’s hiring, payment, provision of victim details, and planning were overt acts beyond mere preparation, so attempt sustained	Melton: the acts amounted to solicitation and preparation, not an overt act approximating consummation	Reversed conviction for attempted murder—evidence showed solicitation but not the overt act required under NC common law
Double jeopardy from convicting for solicitation and attempt	State: attempt and solicitation require different elements, so convictions permissible	Melton: argued double jeopardy would bar punishment for both where based on same conduct	Not reached—court reversed attempt conviction and remanded, so double jeopardy analysis unnecessary

Miller, 344 N.C. 658, 477 S.E.2d 915 (N.C. 1996) (elements of attempt; intent plus overt act beyond mere preparation)
Price v. State, 280 N.C. 154, 184 S.E.2d 866 (N.C. 1971) (overt act must approach commencement of consummation)
Parker, 224 N.C. 524, 31 S.E.2d 531 (N.C. 1944) (act ‘‘apparently adapted to produce the result intended’’ constitutes attempt)
Addor, 183 N.C. 687, 110 S.E. 650 (N.C. 1922) (distinguishing preparation from attempt; arranging means is not attempt)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test for whether two offenses constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes)