In its first argument the State asserts that the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals was in error by holding that G.S. 14-230, so far as it applies to magistrates, was repealed by implication through the enactment of G.S. 7A-173 and G.S. 7A-376. In this State “repeal by implication” is not a favored rule of statutory construction.
Commissioner of Insurance v. Automobile Rate Office,
In
State v. Hockaday,
G.S. 7A-173 and G.S. 7A-376 fall within Chapter 7A titled, “Judicial Department” and provide for the censure, suspension or
*519
removal of those magistrates who are guilty of misconduct in office. On the other hand, G.S. 14-230 falls within Chaper 14 which is titled “Criminal Law” and provides for criminal punishment for misconduct in office. As Justice (later Chief Justice) Bobbitt pointed out in
State v. Hockaday,
As a result of this decision we must address the question of whether there was sufficient evidеnce to warrant submitting this case to the jury and to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty. The defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence is tantamount to а motion for nonsuit.
State v. Cooper,
In his brief the defendant contends that there was not substantial evidence to support two key elements of the State’s case: (1) that the defendant unlawfully placed Larry Hafner in jail for contempt of court and (2) that the defendant’s actions were a willful and corrupt attempt to extort two hundred dollars *520 ($200.00) from Mr. Hafner. We disagree with the defendant and address each contention separately. First, under the indictment in this case all the State had to show was that the defendant placed Mr. Hafner in jail in order to extort and collect from him two hundred dollars ($200.00). Although the record indicates that the defendant would have been justified in jailing Mr. Hаfner on a contempt charge, it is undisputed that Mr. Hafner was jailed without ever being charged with any crime. The State’s evidence also indicаtes that at the time Mr. Hafner’s stepfather arrived to post bond the defendant knew he had not jailed Hafner for contempt but instead was holding him for two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a windshield that had been damaged. It is also undisputed that the defendant instructed one of the attending officers to change thе disposition of Mr. Hafner’s confinement from “contempt” to “hold till sober” after Mr. Hafner paid two hundred dollars ($200.00) in order to secure his releasе. Considering these facts in the light most favorable to the State, a jury could reasonably conclude that Mr. Hafner was jailed at the direction оf the defendant and that the defendant was fully aware that Mr. Hafner remained confined without a charge ever being filed against him. Therefore, thеre was substantial evidence that Mr. Hafner was confined in jail unlawfully by the defendant.
Secondly, the State presented evidence that the defendant refused to issue a criminal warrant against Mr. Hafner and said he “would handle it his way.” Rebecca Carroll Cox, one of the victims, testified that the dеfendant called her the next day (Sunday) on the phone and told her she could come and get the money for her broken windshield. When Ms. Cox requested that the defendant send her a cashier’s check he said, “No, I don’t wany any records of it because I handled it in an underhanded way." Ms. Cox’s father, Mr. Ottie Carroll, testifiеd that he returned to Caldwell County to pick up the money for the damaged windshield and that prior to receiving any money the defendant asked him to write his superior (Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Forrest Ferrell) a letter commending the defendant on the fine way the entire matter was handled. Mr. Carroll also stated that the defendant gave him one hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125.00) and said the rest was to cover court costs. The evidence shows that no charge was ever filed, so no court costs would have been owed. Mr. Carroll testified further that the defendant *521 refused a receipt for the money paid to Mr. Carroll because he didn’t want any receipt in this case and because the money was “hot” and he wanted to be careful. It is uncontradicted that Larry Hafner was not released from jail until he posted what he thought was a two hundred dollars ($200.00) bond. There is sufficiеnt evidence from which a reasonable mind could conclude that the defendant intended to keep Larry Hafner in jail until he paid two hundred dоllars ($200.00) and that he intended to pay over part of that “bond” money to Mr. Carroll and Ms. Cox. There is also substantial evidence that the defendant аttempted to avoid any written record which might indicate that he had done something wrong. As a result we hold that there was substantial evidence that thе defendant corruptly violated his oath by placing Mr. Hafner in jail without any charge and by keeping him there until he paid two hundred dollars ($200.00).
We wish to pоint out that even if the defendant was attempting to reach a fair settlement between the victims and Mr. Hafner, he did so without the consent of either party. Mr. Hafner was clearly an unwilling participant in the defendant’s settlement scheme. Corruption is defined as, “The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 311 (Rev. 5th Ed. 1979). The evidence in this case supports the conclusion that the defendant, contrary to the rights of Mr. Hafner and at least for the benefit of Mr. Carroll and Ms. Cox, wrongfully used the power of his office to confine Mr. Hafner and obtain from him two hundred dollars ($200.00) for which there was no legal obligation.
We reverse and vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to that court for the reinstatement of the trial court’s judgment.
Reversed and remanded.