{ "id": 4159105, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: R.D.L., Juvenile", "name_abbreviation": "In re R.D.L.", "decision_date": "2008-08-05", "docket_number": "No. COA07-1427", "first_page": "526", "last_page": "535", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "191 N.C. App. 526" } ], "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": "622 S.E.2d 120", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634478 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "123" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/622/0120-01" ] }, { "cite": "636 S.E.2d 277", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636994 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "281", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Wood, 174 N.C. App. 790, 795, 622 S.E.2d 120, 123 (2005)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/636/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 S.E.2d 921", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "926" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557911 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "281-82" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 S.E.2d 303", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527326 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 L. Ed. 2d 526", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding that the \"[d]efendant objected to the evidence on only one ground; thus, he failed to preserve the additional grounds presented on appeal\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "517 U.S. 1123", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11768993, 11768609, 11768259, 11768294, 11768199, 11768841, 11768523, 11768781, 11768078, 11768143, 11768690, 11768915, 11768376, 11768027, 11768447 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding that the \"[d]efendant objected to the evidence on only one ground; thus, he failed to preserve the additional grounds presented on appeal\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/517/1123-15", "/us/517/1123-10", "/us/517/1123-05", "/us/517/1123-06", "/us/517/1123-04", "/us/517/1123-13", "/us/517/1123-09", "/us/517/1123-12", "/us/517/1123-02", "/us/517/1123-03", "/us/517/1123-11", "/us/517/1123-14", "/us/517/1123-07", "/us/517/1123-01", "/us/517/1123-08" ] }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "677" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793157 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "496" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "513 S.E.2d 57", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "70" }, { "page": "70" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132086 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213-14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "549 S.E.2d 860", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135682, 135715, 135815, 135752, 135836 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0528-02", "/nc/353/0528-03", "/nc/353/0528-05", "/nc/353/0528-04", "/nc/353/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 S.E.2d 111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "118" }, { "page": "118" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.C. App. 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11241843 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "530-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/135/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N.C. App. 790", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8353318 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "795" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/174/0790-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 N.C. App. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8239959 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "156", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Wood, 174 N.C. App. 790, 795, 622 S.E.2d 120, 123 (2005)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/180/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "117" }, { "page": "117" }, { "page": "117" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573434 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" }, { "page": "98" }, { "page": "98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "550 S.E.2d 815", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "819", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980)" }, { "page": "819" }, { "page": "819" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 N.C. App. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11435150 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "28", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980)" }, { "page": "28" }, { "page": "28" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/145/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "562 S.E.2d 583", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "585" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 N.C. App. 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9080140 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "129" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/150/0127-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 841, "char_count": 20560, "ocr_confidence": 0.732, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.884212328542985e-08, "percentile": 0.36863616373000896 }, "sha256": "f96243059174d50330a223ed83a429100c41ab5ea57f88d122d9deb5863349d8", "simhash": "1:d3e136d0c65f4c52", "word_count": 3411 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:44:10.260573+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges ELMORE and JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: R.D.L., Juvenile" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nR.D.L. (Respondent), a juvenile, appeals from adjudication and disposition orders entered 22 August 2007. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse seven of the nine adjudications and remand for a new disposition as to the two remaining adjudications.\nOfficer Jackie Stepp (Officer Stepp) of the Asheville Police Department filed nine juvenile petitions on 23 May 2007, alleging that Respondent was a delinquent juvenile, and charging that: (1) on 8 December 2006, Respondent damaged a 2007 black Chevrolet Silverado, owned by Tony Ray Clark, with an \u201cunknown blunt object [that] was thrown and hit the truck in the passenger side\u201d; (2) on 13 January 2007, Respondent broke two windows in a 1994 beige Ford Aerostar owned by Mary Honeycutt MacKintosh, causing damage in excess of $200.00; (3) on 13 January 2007, Respondent damaged real property at Braswell Scale and Equipment (Braswell Scale), by breaking \u201c[w]indows on the right side of the building\u201d and damaging the windshield of a commercial box truck; (4) on 15 January 2007, Respondent \u201csmashed out\u201d all the windows in a 1993 Ford Econoline van owned by \u201cHav A Cup, Karl Lail,\u201d causing damage in excess of $200.00; (5) on 22 January 2007, Respondent damaged the back doors and back right side of a 2007 white Chevrolet van owned by Enterprise Leasing, causing damage in excess of $200.00; (6) on 22 January 2007, Respondent broke three windows \u201cin the back of the business\u201d on real property owned by Braswell Scale; (7) on 13 March 2007, Respondent \u201cshot out\u201d the back door window of a 1993 Ford Econoline van owned by \u201cKarl Lail, Hav A Cup\u201d; (8) on 23 April 2007, Respondent broke four front windows of a warehouse owned by \u201cConnie Byrd, Bruner & Lay\u201d; and (9) on 24 April 2007, Respondent broke a glass window on the south side of the Braswell Scale building.\nAt the start of trial, the State moved for joinder of Respondent\u2019s case with the case involving his co-respondent, D.S. Counsel for Respondent and for D.S. objected to joinder arguing that the incidents were diverse and that there was no indication that the same individuals were involved in all of the incidents. The trial court allowed the State\u2019s motion for joinder.\nJohn Timothy Farlow, Jr. (Mr. Farlow) testified that he was a salesman at Braswell Scale. Mr. Farlow testified that he told police about damage to personal and real property that occurred at Braswell Scale on 13 January 2007, 22 January 2007, and 24 April 2007. However, Mr. Farlow twice testified that he did not know which damage occurred on which date. Mr. Farlow also testified that he had a video which showed \u201ca busted window and fireworks going off between the vehicles\u201d on 24 April 2007. The video was admitted into evidence. Mr. Farlow testified as follows that he went with Officer Stepp to Respondent\u2019s grandmother\u2019s house:\nQ What, if anything, happened there?\nA We basically asked [Respondent] \u2014 you know, he didn\u2019t say a whole lot. He cried most of the time. Finally he said that he \u2014 his grandmother said, \u201cYou better tell them what\u2019s going on,\u201d and [Respondent] told us that he did do it and he told \u2014 we asked him who the third person that had been with him- \u2014 wasn\u2019t in the picture, who it was, and he told us it was [D.W.] and he assured us he wouldn\u2019t be back.\nQ After you spoke with Officer Stepp and met with [D.S.] and his mother and [Respondent] and his grandmother, have you had any problem since then?\nA No, ma\u2019am.\nQ Have you had any windows broken out?\nA No, ma\u2019am.\nQ Of vehicles or your building?\nA No, ma\u2019am.\nOn cross-examination, Mr. Farlow testified as follows:\nQ And you don\u2019t recall what day it was that you went to [Respondent\u2019s] house?\nA No. I don\u2019t. I know I\u2019ve got a file at work.\nQ If Officer Stepp\u2019s report indicated that was the 25th day of April, would you have any reason to doubt that?\nA No.\nQ When you went to the house that day, you were specifically inquiring about the incident that happened the day before?\nA No. We were inquiring about all of them.\nQ Well, you said that [Respondent] said he did it. Isn\u2019t it true that what he said was that he had thrown a rock at someone and had almost hit someone?\nA I don\u2019t recall. He pretty much basically confessed to being at all\u2014\nQ So you don\u2019t recall the exact words he said?\nA No.\nQ And you didn\u2019t write them down?\nA No.\nTony Clark (Mr. Clark) testified regarding an incident that occurred on 8 December 2006. Mr. Clark testified that as he drove past Hillside Mobile Home Park on Sweeten Creek Road, he \u201cfelt and heard [a] wild bang on [his] truck.\u201d Mr. Clark pulled over and saw \u201ca big dent on the rear-passenger side of the truck.\u201d Mr. Clark further testified that as soon as he heard the thump on his truck, he looked back and saw two or three people running near the road and \u201cup under the trees.\u201d Mr. Clark identified D.S. as one of the people he saw running near the road on 8 December 2006, but he could not identify Respondent.\nOfficer Stepp testified that she showed D.S. a still photograph derived from the video taken on 24 April 2007, and D.S. admitted that he was one of the individuals in the photograph. Officer Stepp also testified that D.S. identified Respondent as the other person in the photograph, and that Respondent admitted that he was the other person in the photograph. Officer Stepp also testified that she went to Respondent\u2019s grandmother\u2019s house:\nWe went up there, just talked about what had happened. As he said, [Respondent] was pretty upset about the situation. [Respondent] admitted that he threw the rock. [Respondent] specifically said, \u201cYeah, it\u2019s me in the picture. Yeah, I threw the rock.\u201d [Respondent] also stated that back in January, when the most damage was done to the properties, that it was he, [D.S.], and [D.W.]\nOn cross-examination, Officer Stepp twice clarified that Respondent admitted involvement in only two incidents at Braswell Scale. She testified that Respondent \u201calso stated that he\u2019s thrown rocks at vehicles[,]\u201d but that Respondent did not admit to hitting a vehicle with a rock. Officer Stepp further testified that she did not question Respondent about any specific incidents other than the 24 April 2007 incident at Braswell Scale.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, Respondent\u2019s counsel moved to dismiss. Respondent\u2019s counsel conceded that the State had offered sufficient evidence of the 13 January 2007 and 24 April 2007 incidents at Braswell Scale. However, Respondent\u2019s counsel moved to dismiss the remaining seven petitions for insufficient evidence. The trial court denied the motion. Respondent did not present evidence.\nIn an adjudication order entered 22 August 2007, the trial court adjudicated Respondent delinquent \u201cby reason of four counts of injury to real property in violation of G.S. 14-127 and five counts of injury to personal property in violation of G.S. 14-160.\u201d The trial court entered a Level 1 disposition on 22 August 2007, which: (1) placed Respondent on probation for a period of twelve months; (2) ordered Respondent to serve 100 hours of community service; (3) imposed a curfew upon Respondent; (4) ordered that Respondent not associate with D.S. or D.W.; (5) ordered that Respondent not be on the property of \u201cHav A Cup, Braswell Scale, [and] Brunner & Lay, Inc.\u201d; and (6) ordered Respondent\u2019s \u201c[p]arent to contact Western Highlands within 10 days to schedule an appointment for [Respondent] to be assessed for mental health services.\u201d Respondent appeals.\nI.\nRespondent first argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss seven of the nine juvenile petitions. Respondent contends that the State\u2019s evidence against him in seven of the nine petitions was \u201cweak to the point of being mere speculation.\u201d We agree.\nIn reviewing a motion to dismiss a juvenile petition, courts must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, which is entitled to every reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence. In re Brown, 150 N.C. App. 127, 129, 562 S.E.2d 583, 585 (2002). \u201cWhere the juvenile moves to dismiss, the trial court must determine \u2018whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, . . . and (2) of [the] [juvenile\u2019s] being the perpetrator of such offense.\u2019 \u201d In re Heil, 145 N.C. App. 24, 28, 550 S.E.2d 815, 819 (2001) (quoting State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980)). \u201c \u2018Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u2019 \u201d In re S.R.S., 180 N.C. App. 151, 156, 636 S.E.2d 277, 281 (2006) (quoting State v. Wood, 174 N.C. App. 790, 795, 622 S.E.2d 120, 123 (2005)). If the evidence raises merely \u201c \u2018suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the offense or the identity of the [juve-\nnile] as the perpetrator of it, the motion should be allowed.\u2019 \u201d In re Heil, 145 N.C. App. at 28, 550 S.E.2d at 819 (quoting Powell, 299 N.C. at 98, 261 S.E.2d at 117).\n\u2022 In the case before us, the State did not present individualized proof of each of the offenses charged in the nine petitions. In fact, the State did not present any testimony from the property owners, other than Mr. Farlow and Mr. Clark, whose real and personal property was allegedly damaged. Rather, in its brief, the State contends that Respondent made a general admission at trial to all nine offenses:\nSix of the incidents occurred in close temporal and physical proximity, and all six involved cars being damaged by rocks. [Respondent] confessed that he threw rocks at cars. [Respondent] also said \u201cit would stop.\u201d [Mr.] Farlow, who was with Officer Stepp during the interviews, considered [Respondent\u2019s] statements to implicate [Respondent] in the several incidents when cars were damaged. Here, the trial court properly considered [Respondent\u2019s] statements to be a general admission that he participated in all nine incidents of vandalism.\nThe State also points to the following evidence as sufficient to survive Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss:\nThe evidence at trial also included the picture of [Respondent] and [D.S.] taken from the surveillance camera. Both [D.S.] and [Respondent] lived within a short walking distance from the road and businesses where the vandalism occurred, and there was a trail leading from [D.S.\u2019s] residence to Braswell Scale. Finally, once the juveniles were directly questioned, both tearfully admitted their actions and promised to stop, and no further incidents occurred at Braswell Scale, the primary victim.\nWe cannot agree with the State that Respondent\u2019s statements amounted to a general admission, nor can we agree that the State presented substantial evidence of Respondent\u2019s participation in the seven challenged offenses. Officer Stepp testified that she did not question Respondent about any specific incidents other than the 24 April 2007 incident at Braswell Scale. She also testified that Respondent did not admit to hitting any vehicles with rocks. Moreover, although Mr. Farlow testified that Respondent said that he \u201cdid do it,\u201d it appears from the context of this testimony that Respondent was admitting his involvement in the 24 April 2007 incident at Braswell Scale that had been captured on videotape. Directly following Mr. Farlow\u2019s testimony that Respondent said he \u201cdid do it,\u201d Mr. Farlow further testified that \u201cwe asked him who the third person that had been with him \u2014 wasn\u2019t in the picture, who it was, and he told us it was [D.W.] and he assured us he wouldn\u2019t be back.\u201d The State also asked Mr. Farlow whether there had been any more damage at Braswell Scale since meeting with Respondent, and Mr. Farlow said there had not. This further demonstrates that any admission made by Respondent at that meeting related to incidents at Braswell Scale. Furthermore, because Mr. Farlow was employed by Braswell Scale, any admission that Respondent made to him and Officer Stepp logically would have related .to the incidents at Braswell Scale.\nWe recognize that Officer Stepp testified that \u201c[Respondent] also stated that back in January, when the most damage was done to the properties, that it was [Respondent], [D.S.], and [D.W.]\u201d However, the transcript does not reflect that Officer Stepp questioned Respondent about each particular incident that occurred in January 2007. Officer Stepp\u2019s testimony does not reveal the \u201cproperties\u201d to which she was referring. Therefore, the record is too ambiguous for this statement to amount to a general admission that Respondent committed the offenses that allegedly occurred in January 2007.\nAs to the other evidence cited by the State, the photograph of Respondent only tied him to the 24 April 2007 incident at Braswell Scale, and Respondent did not move to dismiss that petition. Furthermore, the fact that Respondent lived in close proximity to the area where the damage occurred does not provide substantial evidence that Respondent was the perpetrator of the offenses. As to the fact that there was no more damage at Braswell Scale following the meeting with Respondent, this merely demonstrates that Respondent\u2019s admission to Mr. Farlow and Officer Stepp was confined to incidents at Braswell Scale.\nIn sum, the State failed to present substantial evidence that Defendant was the perpetrator of the seven offenses that he moved to dismiss. Specifically, although Mr. Clark identified D.S. as one of the people he saw running near the road after he felt and heard the \u201cbang\u201d on his truck, Mr. Clark could not identify Respondent as a perpetrator of that offense. Mary Honeycutt MacKintosh did not testify and there was no other evidence to establish that Respondent broke two windows of her 1994 beige Ford Aerostar. Neither Karl Lail, nor any other representative from Hav A Cup, testified that Respondent caused damage to a 1993 Ford Econoline van on two different occasions. Likewise, no representative from Enterprise Leasing testified that Respondent caused damage to the back doors and back right side of a 2007 white Chevrolet van. Respondent did not admit to any violation at Braswell Scale on 22 January 2007, and Mr. Farlow did not testify as to this specific incident. Finally, neither Connie Byrd, nor any other representative of Brunner & Lay, testified that Respondent broke four front windows of Brunner & Lay\u2019s warehouse.\nFor all the reasons stated above, we hold that the evidence merely raised \u201c \u2018suspicion or conjecture\u2019 \u201d as to Respondent\u2019s participation in the acts charged in the challenged juvenile petitions. See In re Heil, 145 N.C. App. at 28, 550 S.E.2d at 819 (quoting Powell, 299 N.C. at 98, 261 S.E.2d at 117). Accordingly, we hold the trial court erred by denying Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss those petitions. We thus reverse and remand said adjudications with instructions to dismiss those petitions.\nIn State v. Gilley, 135 N.C. App. 519, 522 S.E.2d 111 (1999), cert. denied, 353 N.C. 528, 549 S.E.2d 860 (2001), our Court remanded the case for re-sentencing-after we determined that one conviction must be vacated and that the trial court had consolidated numerous convictions for sentencing. Id. at 530-31, 522 S.E.2d at 118. Moreover, in State v. Brown, 350 N.C. 193, 513 S.E.2d 57 (1999), our Supreme Court stated that an appellate court cannot \u201cassume that the trial court\u2019s consideration of two offenses, as opposed to one, had no affect [sic] on the sentence imposed.\u201d Id. at 213, 513 S.E.2d at 70.\nIn the case before us, the trial court determined that Respondent had a low delinquency history level. Moreover, the offenses with which Respondent was charged are Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors, which are classified as minor offenses. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(a)(3) (2007). Based upon the table under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(f) (2007), a juvenile with a low delinquency history who commits a minor offense is subject to a Level 1 disposition. Accordingly, after the trial court found that Respondent had committed nine minor offenses, the trial court properly classified Respondent at the lowest Level 1 for dispositional purposes. The trial court then entered a disposition order with six specific dispositions.\nWe recognize that these are among the most lenient of dispositional alternatives available for delinquent juveniles. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2506 (2007). We further recognize that while there are fundamental distinctions between criminal trials and juvenile proceedings, we believe that the decisions of our Courts in which we have remanded a case for re-sentencing for non-vacated convictions are instructive. We are unable to determine whether the trial court would have altered the disposition order had the trial court properly adjudicated Respondent delinquent based solely upon the two petitions in support of which the State submitted sufficient evidence. Although we recognize that, upon remand, this case could result in the same disposition based solely upon the two valid adjudications, we must remand it nonetheless for a new disposition. Gilley, 135 N.C. App. at 530-31, 522 S.E.2d at 118; Brown, 350 N.C. at 213-14, 513 S.E.2d at 70.\nII.\nRespondent also argues the trial court erred by \u201callowing the State\u2019s oral motion for joinder of the juveniles\u2019 cases for trial in that the motion was not written as required by [N.C. Gen. Stat.] \u00a7 15A-926(b)(2).\u201d However, at trial, Respondent did not object to joinder on this ground. Rather, Respondent argued that the incidents were diverse and that there was no indication that the same individuals were involved in all of the incidents. Therefore, Respondent failed to preserve the argument he now attempts to assert on appeal. See N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (stating that \u201c[i]n order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context\u201d); State v. Frye, 341 N.C. 470, 496, 461 S.E.2d 664, 677 (1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1123, 134 L. Ed. 2d 526 (1996) (holding that the \u201c[d]efendant objected to the evidence on only one ground; thus, he failed to preserve the additional grounds presented on appeal\u201d).\nHowever, even assuming arguendo that Respondent preserved this issue, Respondent\u2019s argument lacks merit. In State v. Fink, 92 N.C. App. 523, 375 S.E.2d 303 (1989), our Court held that a joinder motion \u201cneed not be written if made at a hearing, and, in the judge\u2019s discretion, the motion may be made orally even at the beginning of trial.\u201d Id. at 529, 375 S.E.2d at 306-07 (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 15A-926(b)(2), 15A-951(a), 15A-952(b), (f) (1988); State v. Slade, 291 N.C. 275, 281-82, 229 S.E.2d 921, 926 (1976)). Respondent has neither argued, nor demonstrated, that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard. We overrule this assignment of error.\nRespondent has abandoned his first assignment of error by failing to set forth argument in support thereof. See N.C.R. App. P 28(b)(6).\nReversed in part and remanded.\nJudges ELMORE and JACKSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McGEE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Alexandra Gruber, for the State.", "Carol Ann Bauer for Respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: R.D.L., Juvenile\nNo. COA07-1427\n(Filed 5 August 2008)\n1. Juveniles\u2014 cars damaged \u2014 insufficiency of evidence of some counts \u2014 entire adjudication remanded\nA juvenile adjudication was reversed and remanded where the proceeding arose from a series of incidents in which cars were damaged by rocks, respondent\u2019s statements did not amount to a general admission, and the State did not present substantial evidence of respondent\u2019s participation in seven of the nine offenses. It could not be determined whether the disposition order would have been altered had the trial court properly adjudicated respondent delinquent based solely on the two petitions on which the State presented sufficient evidence.\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issue \u2014 basis of objection at trial \u2014 oral motion for joinder at proceeding\nA juvenile did not preserve for appeal the question of whether the State\u2019s oral motion for joinder should have been written because he objected at trial on a different ground. However, even if it had been preserved, it has been held that an oral motion may be made in the judge\u2019s discretion, and respondent neither argued nor demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.\nAppeal by Respondent from orders entered 22 August 2007 by Judge Shirley H. Brown in District Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 April 2008.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Alexandra Gruber, for the State.\nCarol Ann Bauer for Respondent." }, "file_name": "0526-01", "first_page_order": 558, "last_page_order": 567 }