{ "id": 4156117, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAUREN ELIZABETH CROWE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Crowe", "decision_date": "2008-02-19", "docket_number": "No. COA07-428", "first_page": "765", "last_page": "773", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "188 N.C. App. 765" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "652 S.E.2d 216", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12639660 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/652/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "596 S.E.2d 358", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "360", "parenthetical": "\"[I]f the conspiracy is to be proved by inferences drawn from the evidence, such evidence must point unerringly to the existence of a conspiracy.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. App. 708", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8900869 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711", "parenthetical": "\"[I]f the conspiracy is to be proved by inferences drawn from the evidence, such evidence must point unerringly to the existence of a conspiracy.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/164/0708-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 L. Ed. 2d 684", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "531 U.S. 1083", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9696835, 9696995, 9696964, 9696934, 9696712, 9696907, 9696799, 9696783, 9696879, 9696818, 9696692, 9696758, 9696855, 9696735 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/531/1083-08", "/us/531/1083-14", "/us/531/1083-13", "/us/531/1083-12", "/us/531/1083-02", "/us/531/1083-11", "/us/531/1083-06", "/us/531/1083-05", "/us/531/1083-10", "/us/531/1083-07", "/us/531/1083-01", "/us/531/1083-04", "/us/531/1083-09", "/us/531/1083-03" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E. 711", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1933, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "712" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 710", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624511 ], "year": 1933, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "712" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0710-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 S.E.2d 807", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "822", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Whiteside, 204 N.C. 710, 712, 169 S.E. 711, 712 (1933)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684912 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "25", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Whiteside, 204 N.C. 710, 712, 169 S.E. 711, 712 (1933)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 S.E.2d 833", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "835" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 654", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2556155 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "658" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0654-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 S.E.2d 612", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570700 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 587", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3745043 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "595" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0587-01" ] }, { "cite": "453 S.E.2d 211", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "216" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.C. App. 654", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526154 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "661", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "661-62" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/117/0654-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 S.E.2d 332", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2496558, 2497298, 2499606, 2495994, 2495839 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0641-01", "/nc/327/0641-04", "/nc/327/0641-05", "/nc/327/0641-03", "/nc/327/0641-02" ] }, { "cite": "395 S.E.2d 143", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147-48" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526601 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247" }, { "page": "247" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 S.E.2d 365", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369", "parenthetical": "\"The solicitor conceives the criminal idea and furthers its commission via another person by suggesting to, inducing, or manipulating that person.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4778022 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "171", "parenthetical": "\"The solicitor conceives the criminal idea and furthers its commission via another person by suggesting to, inducing, or manipulating that person.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 L. Ed. 2d 281", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "434 U.S. 924", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6427200, 6428259, 6427109, 6427687, 6427816, 6427463, 6427563, 6428013, 6427929, 6428122, 6427293 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/434/0924-02", "/us/434/0924-11", "/us/434/0924-01", "/us/434/0924-06", "/us/434/0924-07", "/us/434/0924-04", "/us/434/0924-05", "/us/434/0924-09", "/us/434/0924-08", "/us/434/0924-10", "/us/434/0924-03" ] }, { "cite": "235 S.E.2d 193", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "199" }, { "page": "199" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 711", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572704 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "720" }, { "page": "720" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0711-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 S.E.2d 718", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4760004 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 S.E.2d 396", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "399", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4737959 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "108", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 S.E.2d 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564024 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 L. Ed. 2d 216", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "525 U.S. 915", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11124480, 11124386, 11124611, 11124518, 11124424, 11124587, 11124376, 11124398, 11124564, 11124503, 11124440, 11124409, 11124540, 11124350 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/525/0915-08", "/us/525/0915-03", "/us/525/0915-14", "/us/525/0915-10", "/us/525/0915-06", "/us/525/0915-13", "/us/525/0915-02", "/us/525/0915-04", "/us/525/0915-12", "/us/525/0915-09", "/us/525/0915-07", "/us/525/0915-05", "/us/525/0915-11", "/us/525/0915-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S.E.2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "665" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N.C. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569961 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "358" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/263/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "499 S.E.2d 431", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "443" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659874 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "102" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "169" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559773 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 L. Ed. 2d 230", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "535 U.S. 939", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 354817, 352674, 354627, 354882, 352386, 352967, 352362, 354574, 352817, 352115, 354453, 354007, 353052, 352991 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/535/0939-09", "/us/535/0939-01", "/us/535/0939-13", "/us/535/0939-12", "/us/535/0939-08", "/us/535/0939-03", "/us/535/0939-04", "/us/535/0939-06", "/us/535/0939-10", "/us/535/0939-11", "/us/535/0939-07", "/us/535/0939-02", "/us/535/0939-14", "/us/535/0939-05" ] }, { "cite": "539 S.E.2d 633", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "636" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135860 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "216" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 S.E.2d 684", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "700", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Israel, 353 N.C. 211, 216, 539 S.E.2d 633, 636 (2000)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135851 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Israel, 353 N.C. 211, 216, 539 S.E.2d 633, 636 (2000)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 S.E.2d 585", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "587" }, { "page": "587" }, { "page": "587", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2395265 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "566" }, { "page": "566" }, { "page": "566" }, { "page": "566" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0563-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 941, "char_count": 19110, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08, "percentile": 0.30814093794657527 }, "sha256": "5c8efdf60a95659a1626679025aee99b7a17e661baaec7b8a0dd89ca2d893678", "simhash": "1:c6ed7023f32b18fa", "word_count": 3182 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:30.605877+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and STEPHENS concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAUREN ELIZABETH CROWE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nDefendant Lauren Elizabeth Crowe was indicted for the first degree murder of her mother, Janet Evangeline Crowe Mundy, for soliciting Christopher Albert Tarantino to commit the felony of first degree murder, and for conspiring with Tarantino to commit first degree murder. She entered pleas of not guilty and was tried non-capitally. A jury found defendant not guilty of first degree murder and guilty of solicitation to commit first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 72 to 96 months for solicitation to commit first degree murder and 156 to 197 months for conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Defendant gave notice of appeal.\nAs relevant to the issues properly before this Court, evidence presented at defendant\u2019s trial tended to show that in the early morning hours of 10 July 2004, defendant\u2019s mother was fatally shot and stabbed in her home. She suffered four gunshot wounds to the legs, abdomen, liver, and lung, and multiple stab wounds to the neck, back, shoulder, and hand. The victim was found partially clothed lying on top of some bedding in the doorway between the kitchen and her bedroom with blood pooling around her. The glass panel closest to the doorknob on the front door was broken, glass particles were found inside the home, and the house looked as though it had been \u201cransacked.\u201d Upon entry into the home, the investigative personnel on the scene smelled a \u201cstrong odor\u201d which \u201cseemed to be practically everywhere.\u201d The source of the odor was later determined to be vinegar. A bottle of vinegar was found on the floor next to the victim\u2019s body. The scent of vinegar was also found on the lower portion of the size 2 blue jeans found on the floor of defendant\u2019s bedroom.\nDefendant called 911 at 5:01 a.m. to report the murder of her mother. Defendant told the 911 dispatcher that she was \u201cin bed asleep and heard noises, heard a car drive by, heard a window break\u201d and \u201ccame downstairs and found her mother on the floor and she was dead.\u201d When authorities arrived at the scene, the then-sixteen-year-old defendant was found \u201csitting on the front porch still holding the phone.\u201d When asked where her mother was, defendant sat silently and then motioned with her head toward the house saying, \u201cIn there.\u201d\nAt the scene, defendant told investigators that when she heard the gunshots, she hid in the bedroom closet. She said she saw a tall, skinny black male get into a dark vehicle with a Tennessee license plate and an orange sticker on the back. Defendant later told investigators that Junior Mundy, defendant\u2019s stepfather, murdered her mother. In this second version of events, defendant said that Junior Mundy fought with her mother earlier in the evening and said she heard him tell her mother, \u201cThis is your last chance to choose me or [defendant].\u201d Defendant said she heard him slap her mother and heard her mother scream, \u201cNo, no,\u201d and then heard gunshots. Defendant said she ran downstairs and saw Junior Mundy \u201cthrowing things everywhere.\u201d She said he told her that, \u201cunless she wanted things to happen to her,\u201d she should help him clean up the blood. Defendant said Junior Mundy broke the window by the doorknob with a blue flashlight and took the vinegar-soaked, bloodstained rag defendant was using to clean the floor and rubbed it all over her shirt. Defendant said he changed his clothes and left with the bloody rag.\nDefendant then changed her story again and told investigators that Tarantino, her former boyfriend, arrived at her mother\u2019s home at 4:15 a.m. to murder her mother. During her interview at the Cherokee County Sheriffs Office, defendant reportedly said that Tarantino arrived at her home with a gun and, when she met him outside, \u201cshe knew what was going to happen.\u201d Defendant said that Tarantino went into the house and shot her mother. Defendant then entered the house where she found her mother lying on the floor, pleading with defendant to help her saying, \u201c[Y]ou\u2019ve got to help me.\u201d Defendant then testified to exiting the house before Tarantino stabbed her mother repeatedly.\nDefendant claims Tarantino made her help him clean up and gave her a flashlight and told her to break out a window panel to make it look like a break-in. Defendant testified that she was afraid of Tarantino and said he threatened to \u201cgo and get [her] grandmother\u201d if she did not help him stage the scene, and told her she \u201cwas next.\u201d Tarantino was the subject of a domestic violence protective order filed by defendant and her mother on 13 May 2004, almost two months before the murder. However, defendant was said to have repeatedly violated the protective order by meeting and communicating with Tarantino and, according to Junior Mundy, defendant asked her mother to lift the protective order because she \u201cstill like[d Tarantino]\u201d and wanted to \u201cstart back running around with him.\u201d\nAmong the items of evidence recovered at the scene was a crime book entitled Anatomy of Motive, which had a place-holding indentation on a section referencing \u201csomeone killing their mother\u201d where the suspect in the book used a nine-millimeter pistol. The book was found in defendant\u2019s bedroom next to her bed. Several nine-millimeter shell casings and a bullet were recovered at the scene at and around the victim\u2019s body.\nThe record on appeal contains eighteen assignments of error. In her brief, however, defendant presented arguments in support of only eight assignments of error. The remaining assignments of error are deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. P. 28(a) (2008) (\u201cQuestions raised by assignments of error in appeals from trial tribunals but not then presented and discussed in a party\u2019s brief, are deemed abandoned.\u201d).\nI.\nDefendant first contends the trial court erred by denying her motion to dismiss the charge of solicitation to commit murder at the close of the State\u2019s evidence. We agree.\nIt is \u201cwell settled that upon a motion to dismiss in a criminal action, all the evidence admitted, whether competent or incompetent, must be considered by the trial judge in the light most favorable to the State, .giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference that might be drawn therefrom.\u201d State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 566, 313 S.E.2d 585, 587 (1984). \u201c[T]he trial court should consider if the [S]tate has presented substantial evidence on each element of the crime and substantial evidence that the defendant is the perpetrator.\u201d State v. Fowler, 353 N.C. 599, 621, 548 S.E.2d 684, 700 (2001) (citing State v. Israel, 353 N.C. 211, 216, 539 S.E.2d 633, 636 (2000)), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 939, 152 L. Ed. 2d 230 (2002). \u201cSubstantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u201d Brown, 310 N.C. at 566, 313 S.E.2d at 587 (citing State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980)). If the evidence \u201csupports that a reasonable inference of defendant\u2019s guilt may be drawn from the circumstances, then \u2018it is for the [jurors] to decide whether the facts, taken singly or in combination, satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is actually guilty.\u2019 \u201d State v. Warren, 348 N.C. 80, 102, 499 S.E.2d 431, 443 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Rowland, 263 N.C. 353, 358, 139 S.E.2d 661, 665 (1965)), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 915, 142 L. Ed. 2d 216 (1998); see also Brown, 310 N.C. at 566, 313 S.E.2d at 587 (\u201cAny contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence are for resolution by the jury-\u201d (citing State v. Witherspoon, 293 N.C. 321, 237 S.E.2d 822 (1977))). However, \u201c[e]vidence is not substantial if it arouses only a suspicion about the facts to be proved, even if the suspicion is strong.\u201d State v. Sumpter, 318 N.C. 102, 108, 347 S.E.2d 396, 399 (1986) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Malloy, 309 N.C. 176, 305 S.E.2d 718 (1983)).\n\u201cSolicitation of another to commit a felony is a crime in North Carolina... under the common law in this [S]tate.\u201d State v. Furr, 292 N.C. 711, 720, 235 S.E.2d 193, 199 (citations omitted), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 924, 54 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1977). \u201cThe gravamen of the offense of soliciting lies in counseling, enticing or inducing another to commit a crime.\u201d Id.; see also State v. Mann, 317 N.C. 164, 171, 345 S.E.2d 365, 369 (1986) (\u201cThe solicitor conceives the criminal idea and furthers its commission via another person by suggesting to, inducing, or manipulating that person.\u201d). \u201cSolicitation is complete when the request to commit a crime is made, regardless of whether the crime solicited is ever committed or attempted.\u201d State v. Richardson, 100 N.C. App. 240, 247, 395 S.E.2d 143, 147-48 (citing State v. Mann, 317 N.C. 164, 345 S.E.2d 365 (1986)), disc. review denied, 327 N.C. 641, 399 S.E.2d 332 (1990).\n\u201c[T]o hold a defendant liable for the substantive crime of solicitation, the State must prove a request to perform every essential element of the [underlying] crime.\" State v. Suggs, 117 N.C. App. 654, 661, 453 S.E.2d 211, 215 (1995) (emphasis added). The underlying felony in the present case is first degree murder. Therefore, to hold defendant liable for solicitation, the State must prove that defendant counseled, enticed, or induced another to commit each of the following: \u201c(1) an unlawful killing; (2) with malice; (3) with the specific intent to kill formed after some measure of premeditation and deliberation.\u201d State v. Peterson, 361 N.C. 587, 595, 652 S.E.2d 216, 223 (2007).\nIn the present case, in support of its contention that defendant conceived of a plan to have her mother murdered, the State offered into evidence written reports of two interviews with defendant on 10 July and 11 July 2004 taken by Detective Dwayne Anders of the Cherokee County Sheriffs Office and Agent Tom Frye of the Multiple Agency Narcotics Unit. The 11 July 2004 Report of Interview stated:\n[Defendant] said she wasn\u2019t supposed to be . . . [at home with her mother when Tarantino arrived on the night he killed defendant\u2019s mother], that was the plan. [Defendant] said she shouldn\u2019t have let [Tarantino] in because she knew what was going to happen. . . . [Defendant] said she knew that there was a chance that [Tarantino] was coming that night. . . . [Defendant] said she had remorse about thinking up such a thing and not stopping it. [Defendant] said she could have stopped it.\n[Defendant] said it was supposed to happen Friday. . . . [Defendant] said [Tarantino] asked her what time he could come over and if 1:30 or 2:00 [a.m.] would be ok [sic]. [Defendant] said [Tarantino] said he was going to do it and [defendant] said she . . . told [Tarantino] to do just whatever he wanted to do because she was tired of living like this.\nThe State further offered evidence, through the testimony of Shane Reid, that defendant had stated \u201cshe wanted her mother gone.\u201d Reid, who was a friend of both defendant and Tarantino, testified as follows:\nA. Up at Sonic. [Defendant] said that she wanted her mother gone.\nQ. Do you remember generally approximately when that was?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. Who was around?\nA. I don\u2019t recall.\nQ. Did something happen at school?\nA. Yes. [Defendant] said that she wanted her mother gone.\nQ. When did that conversation take place?\nA. With me and [Tarantino] and a group of my friends before the bell rang.\nQ. Do you remember approximately what time of year it was in?\nA. Spring time.\nQ. Do you remember wh,o was around?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. Do you remember what exactly she said?\nA. She said she wanted her mother gone.\nThe State cites no other evidence to support the charge of solicitation to commit murder, nor does our close review of the five-volume trial transcript reveal any other evidence to support the charge. Thus, at the close of the State\u2019s case, the only evidence the State relied upon to argue that defendant solicited Tarantino to kill her mother was the defendant\u2019s \u201cplan\u201d to have her mother killed, her agreement with Tarantino about the time that he should arrive at her house to kill her mother, and Reid\u2019s testimony that defendant made two statements that she \u201cwanted her mother gone\u201d to one or more of her peers. Although \u201c[a] defendant\u2019s conviction of criminal solicitation may properly be based on the defendant\u2019s statements and corroborative evidence, including circumstantial evidence showing the defendant\u2019s seriousness,\u201d 40A Am. Jur. 2d Homicide \u00a7 586 (1999), in the present case, the State presented no evidence that defendant \u201ccounselled], entic[ed,] or inducfed]\u201d Tarantino to murder defendant\u2019s mother. See Furr, 292 N.C. at 720, 235 S.E.2d at 199. Therefore, we find that the trial court erred by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of solicitation to commit murder at the close of the State\u2019s evidence, and we must reverse defendant\u2019s conviction on this charge.\nII.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion to dismiss the charge of conspiracy to commit murder due to insufficient evidence. We disagree.\n\u201cConspiracy ... is the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by an unlawful means.\u201d Richardson, 100 N.C. App. at 247, 395 S.E.2d at 148 (citing State v. Looney, 294 N.C. 1, 240 S.E.2d 612 (1978)). \u201cThe reaching of an agreement is an essential element of conspiracy.\u201d Id. \u201cThus, to survive the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss, . . .\u2022 [the] conspiracy charge[] required that the State produce substantial evidence, which considered in the light most favorable to the State, would allow a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant\u201d and Tarantino agreed to commit the murder of defendant\u2019s mother. See Suggs, 117 N.C. App. at 661-62, 453 S.E.2d at 216.\nHowever, \u201c[i]n order to prove conspiracy, the State need not prove an express agreement; evidence tending to show a mutual, implied understanding will suffice.\u201d State v. Morgan, 329 N.C. 654, 658, 406 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1991). \u201cThe proof of a conspiracy \u2018may be, and generally is, established by a number of indefinite acts, each of which, standing alone, might have little weight, but, taken collectively, they point unerringly to the existence of a conspiracy.\u2019 \u201d State v. Lawrence, 352 N.C. 1, 25, 530 S.E.2d 807, 822 (2000) (quoting State v. Whiteside, 204 N.C. 710, 712, 169 S.E. 711, 712 (1933)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1083, 148 L. Ed. 2d 684 (2001); see also State v. Benardello, 164 N.C. App. 708, 711, 596 S.E.2d 358, 360 (2004) (\u201c[I]f the conspiracy is to be proved by inferences drawn from the evidence, such evidence must point unerringly to the existence of a conspiracy.\u201d) (internal quotation marks omitted).\nIn this case, as excerpted above, the State presented evidence of an investigative interview with defendant on 11 July 2004 at the Cherokee County Sheriff\u2019s Office in which defendant said that she \u201cwasn\u2019t supposed to be . . . [at home with her mother when Tarantino arrived on the night he killed defendant\u2019s mother], that was the plan.\u201d (Emphasis added.) There was evidence that defendant admitted that she \u201cknew what was going to happen\u201d and said she \u201chad remorse about thinking up such a thing and not stopping it.\u201d (Emphasis added.) In the interview, defendant further asserted: her mother\u2019s murder \u201cwas supposed to happen Friday\u201d; she and Tarantino \u201chad talked about [the murder]\u201d; Tarantino \u201casked her what time he could come over and if 1:30 or 2:00 [a.m.] would be ok [sic]\u201d; and defendant \u201csaid [Tarantino] said he was going to do it and [defendant] said she . . . told [Tarantino] to do just whatever he wanted to do because she was tired of living like this.\u201d\nAdditionally, the State presented evidence of three telephone calls made from the telephone at defendant\u2019s mother\u2019s house \u2014 where defendant and her mother were located during the nighttime hours preceding the murder \u2014 to the cellular telephone in the possession of Tarantino on that same night. The telephone calls each lasted at least twenty seconds and were made at 4:04 a.m., 4:06 a.m., and 4:14 a.m. At 5:01 a.m., defendant called 911 to report her mother\u2019s murder.\nWhile the exact content of the telephone conversations between defendant and Tarantino are not in evidence, the evidence showed that the phone calls were made in rapid succession immediately preceding Mrs. Mundy\u2019s death. Defendant contends she telephoned Tarantino to try to stop him from going to her house to carry out the murder. In other words, although defendant \u201cknew what was going to happen\u201d when Tarantino arrived at her mother\u2019s house, she argues that she chose to try to reason with Tarantino herself in three early morning phone calls to him while he was en route to her mother\u2019s home to commit the murder, rather than call the police for assistance. Further, the State presented evidence that defendant admitted to conceiving of and agreeing to a plan with Tarantino to murder her mother on a certain date and at a certain time. Defendant also admitted to agreeing to work with Tarantino to alter the crime scene by cleaning her mother\u2019s blood off of the floor with vinegar, and breaking the window panel next to the doorknob to stage the scene like a break-in. While defendant testified that she acted out of fear of Tarantino, testimony was presented that defendant ignored the protective order entered against Tarantino and had decided she wanted to \u201cstart back running around with [Tarantino].\u201d Because all the evidence admitted must be considered \u201cin the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference that might be drawn therefrom,\u201d Brown, 310 N.C. at 566, 313 S.E.2d at 587 (emphasis added), we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of conspiracy to commit murder.\nIII.\nDefendant finally contends that the trial court erred by sentencing her to consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation to commit murder. Our decision to reverse defendant\u2019s conviction on the charge of solicitation to commit murder renders unnecessary our consideration of this assignment of error, and we do not address it.\n04 CRS 1715 \u2014 Solicitation to commit murder \u2014 reversed.\n04 CRS 2619 \u2014 Conspiracy\u2014no error.\nJudges McGEE and STEPHENS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor General, for the State.", "Crumpler Freedman Parker & Witt, by Vincent F. Rabil, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAUREN ELIZABETH CROWE\nNo. COA07-428\n(Filed 19 February 2008)\n1. Homicide\u2014 solicitation \u2014 evidence not sufficient\nThe trial court erred by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss a charge of solicitation to commit murder. The State presented no evidence that defendant counseled, enticed, or induced another to murder her mother.\n2. Homicide\u2014 conspiracy \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss a charge of conspiracy to murder her mother for insufficient evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 12 May 2006 by Judge J. Marlene Hyatt in Cherokee County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 November 2007.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor General, for the State.\nCrumpler Freedman Parker & Witt, by Vincent F. Rabil, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0765-01", "first_page_order": 795, "last_page_order": 803 }