226 N.C. App. 393
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Williams was convicted of violating a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) and felony stalking following a jury trial.
- The stalking indictment tracked the old statute (2007) but was superseded by a new statute (2009) effective Dec 1, 2008, and the stalking indictment was later amended to track the new language.
- Most pre-December 1, 2008 conduct was proven; post-enactment conduct evidence was weak and contested.
- Trial court gave instructions under the new stalking statute; no specific timing instruction about enactment date was given.
- Defendant moved to dismiss stalking and DVPO charges; the stalking conviction was vacated and remanded for new trial; DVPO conviction was reversed and the charge dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stalking instruction violated due process by applying the new statute to pre-enactment conduct | Williams contends retroactive application alters elements via timing | State argues no ex post facto; due process requires correct timing instruction | Plain error; conviction vacated and new trial remanded |
| Whether the trial court properly instructed on post-enactment predicate conduct for stalking | State asserts continuing conduct after enactment satisfies new statute | Williams argues insufficient post-enactment acts to sustain conviction | Instruction faulty; required post-enactment predicate and special verdict; remanded |
| Whether the DVPO violation evidence was sufficient to support conviction | State argues defendant knowingly violated order by being outside workplace | Williams contends no knowledge or staying-away proof | Insufficient evidence; DVPO conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335 (2010) (ex post facto analysis of criminal statutes)
- State v. Barnes, 345 N.C. 184 (1997) (due process constraints on retroactive judicial action)
- United States v. Marcus, U.S. _ (2010) (due process limits on retroactive jury determinations under amended statutes)
- State v. Gilley, 135 N.C. App. 519 (1999) (stay away vs. residence distinction in DVPO context)