State v. Sanders, 367 N.C. 716

Defendant Rondell Sanders was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon in 2009; at sentencing the trial court assigned prior-record points for two Tennessee misdemeanors: "theft of property" and "domestic assault."
On initial appeal the Court of Appeals remanded, instructing the trial court to compare elements (not punishments) when assessing whether out-of-state misdemeanors are "substantially similar" to North Carolina misdemeanors under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.14(e).
On remand the trial court concluded Tennessee "theft of property" was similar to North Carolina larceny and that Tennessee "domestic assault" was similar to North Carolina "assault on a female."
The Court of Appeals affirmed similarity as to theft/larceny but reversed as to domestic assault vs. assault on a female; a dissent would have found similarity. The State appealed pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2).
The Supreme Court held that a party must present evidence of the applicable out-of-state statutory elements (not just a statute that references another provision) and that the trial court erred by failing to review Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-101 when relying on § 39-13-111.
The Court concluded Tennessee domestic-assault and North Carolina assault-on-a-female are not substantially similar because their elements and covered relationships differ (e.g., Tennessee focuses on specified domestic relationships and is gender-neutral; NC offense requires a male assailant and female victim).

Issue	State's Argument	Sanders' Argument	Held
Whether a party must present the out-of-state statutory elements when proving substantial similarity under § 15A-1340.14(e)	Trial court may rely on the out-of-state statute even if it references another provision without submitting that referenced provision	Opposed; required proof of statutory elements	Court: Proponent must submit evidence of the applicable out-of-state law including any referenced provisions; error to rely on § 39-13-111 without § 39-13-101
Whether Tenn. "domestic assault" is substantially similar to NC "assault on a female"	Look beyond formal elements to facts and legislative purpose; statutes are suitably equivalent	Elements differ; such differences matter	Court: Not substantially similar—elements differ materially (domestic relationship requirement vs. gender/age-based offense)

State v. Rich, 130 N.C. App. 113, 502 S.E.2d 49 (Court of Appeals 1998) (evidence of out-of-state statute law is required to establish elements)
State v. Burgess, 216 N.C. App. 54, 715 S.E.2d 867 (Court of Appeals 2011) (failure to prove governing out-of-state law prevents finding substantial similarity)
State v. Wright, 210 N.C. App. 52, 708 S.E.2d 112 (Court of Appeals 2011) (State must submit copies/evidence of applicable out-of-state statutes to show similarity)
State v. Morgan, 164 N.C. App. 298, 595 S.E.2d 804 (Court of Appeals 2004) (using a later version of an out-of-state statute without proving it was unchanged is insufficient)
State v. Fortney, 201 N.C. App. 662, 687 S.E.2d 518 (Court of Appeals 2010) (substantial-similarity inquiry is a legal comparison of elements)
State v. Hanton, 175 N.C. App. 250, 623 S.E.2d 600 (Court of Appeals 2006) (elements comparison can show offenses are not substantially similar)