{ "id": 4347473, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREGORY MARK BROWN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brown", "decision_date": "2011-12-06", "docket_number": "No. COA11-659", "first_page": "380", "last_page": "384", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "217 N.C. App. 380" } ], "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": "152 S.E. 154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1930, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N.C. 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611025 ], "year": 1930, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "425" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "685 S.E.2d 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115", "parenthetical": "citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted" }, { "page": "115" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N.C. App. 578", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4172507 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "586", "parenthetical": "citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted" }, { "page": "586" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/200/0578-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 S.E.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "810" }, { "page": "810" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 N.C. App. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548946 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "249" }, { "page": "249" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/31/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "693 S.E.2d 145", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "148", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 459, "char_count": 8027, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14773062058830458 }, "sha256": "149a75a6a1a6d050ce8a7a8f5af694cd349d3396371b29676c9fddc9b1e1a13f", "simhash": "1:b2ea12658db4253f", "word_count": 1358 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:07:22.966851+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge ERVIN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREGORY MARK BROWN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nDefendant appeals his convictions for uttering a forged instrument, attempting to obtain property by false pretenses, and obtaining the status of habitual felon. As the State failed to present substantial evidence of forgery, we vacate defendant\u2019s convictions.\nI. Background\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 17 February 2009, Ms. Alice Bolder was working as a teller in the drive-thru at Fifth Third Bank in Kannapolis, North Carolina when she was given a check made out to defendant that \u201clooked very strange.\u201d Ms. Bolder notified her supervisor who called the police. Defendant provided a written statement to Officer Gohlke of the Kannapolis Police Department:\nOn February 16, 2009,1 was in Charlotte and a light skinned black dude I know as \u201cJ\u201d gave me a check for $655.20 written on a check from HP Invent in Statesville, NC. Previously he asked me if I had an account at Fifth Third Bank. I told him I did. \u201cJ\u201d gave me the check and I asked him if the money was in there and he said it was. \u201cJ\u201d told me that if I cashed it for him, I could keep $50 from it. I am not sure if \u201cJ\u201d really works for HP. \u201cJ\u201d said he would call me later and get his money. I don\u2019t know \u201cJ[\u2019s]\u201d number.\n(Original in all caps.)\nOn or about 18 May 2009, defendant was indicted for uttering a forged instrument, obtaining property by false pretenses, and obtaining the status of habitual felon. Defendant was tried by a jury and found guilty of all of the charges. The trial court determined defendant had a prior record level of III, and defendant was sentenced to 70 to 93 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.\nII. Motion to Dismiss\nDefendant contends that \u201cthe trial court erred by denying Mr. Brown\u2019s motion to dismiss the charges at the close of all the evidence, where the evidence was insufficient to prove Mr. Brown guilty of either uttering a forged instrument or attempted obtaining property by false pretenses.\u201d (Original in all caps.)\nThe standard of review for a motion to dismiss is well known. A defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss should be denied if there is substantial evidence of: (1) each essential element of the offense charged, and (2) of defendant\u2019s being the perpetrator of the charged offense. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and the State is entitled to every reasonable inference to be drawn from that evidence.\nState v. Johnson, _ N.C. App. _, _, 693 S.E.2d 145, 148 (2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted).\n\u201cThe essential elements of the crime of uttering a forged check are (1) the offer of a forged check to another, (2) with knowledge that the check is false, and (3) with the intent to defraud or injure another.\u201d State v. Hill, 31 N.C. App. 248, 249, 229 S.E.2d 810, 810 (1976).\nTo sustain a conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses, the State must establish: (1) A false representation of a past or subsisting fact or a future fulfillment or event, (2) which is calculated and intended to deceive, (3) which does in fact deceive, and (4) by which the defendant obtains or attempts to obtain anything of value from another person.\nState v. Wright, 200 N.C. App. 578, 586, 685 S.E.2d 109, 115 (2009) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Defendant does not contest the evidence as to each element of the charged offenses but only argues that \u201cthe State was required to prove that Mr. Brown\u2019s check was actually forged in order to secure a conviction for either offense\u201d and that \u201c[t]he State did not meet its burden in this case because it did not present any evidence that Mr. Brown\u2019s check was actually forged.\u201d\nWhile Chapter 14, Article 21 of our General Statutes entitled \u201cForgery\u201d does not define the word \u201cforgery,\u201d our case law has stated that \u201c[t]he books abound in definitions of forgery\u201d and though \u201c[i]t would be difficult to frame a definition to include all possible cases ... as a rule the false writing must purport to be the writing of a party other than the one who makes it and it must indicate an attempted deception of similarity.\u201d State v. Lamb, 198 N.C. 423, 425, 152 S.E. 154, 155 (1930).\nThe State directs our attention to five pieces of evidence that it claims show forgery. The first piece of evidence is that \u201cthe Defendant presented a HP payroll check at Fifth Third Bank to be cashed[,]\u201d but the fact that defendant presented a check to be cashed does not demonstrate that the check was forged. Second, the State notes that Ms. Bolder found the check \u201cto be \u2018very strange\u2019.. . due to a number of discrepancies in the format and content of the payroll checkf;]\u201d while \u201cstrangeness\u201d may be circumstantial evidence of some wrongdoing, it does not specifically provide evidence of forgery. Third, the State argues that the check \u201cappealed] to be a HP payroll check,\u201d but defendant admitted he \u201cdid not work for HP[,]\u201d but the fact that defendant did not work for HP is not evidence that the check was not from HP. Fourth, the State directs this Court\u2019s attention to defendant\u2019s admission\nthat, although the check was made payable to the Defendant, it was not his check, and he was not entitled to retain all the proceeds of the same; the Defendant indicated that he had been approached by a third-party and offered fifty dollars . . . from the proceeds of the check if he would cash the same.\nWhile such statements by defendant may be circumstantial evidence of some sort of wrongdoing on the part of defendant, they are not evidence of forgery, i.e., that the writing was false in that it was not a check from HP. See id. Lastly, the State contends that \u201cmost importantly, the Defendant admitted that he knew the check was not good.\u201d After a thorough review of the transcript, we find no such admission by defendant. During defendant\u2019s trial, the State\u2019s attorney repeatedly asked Officer Gohlke whether defendant \u201cacknowledged that he knew the check was no good[,]\u201d but Officer Gohlke ultimately testified that the statements regarding the check being \u201cno good\u201d were his own words \u201csummarizing\u201d defendant\u2019s statements; defendant had only actually \u201cacknowledged that someone else gave him the check and that he didn\u2019t work for HP[.]\u201d While Ms. Bolder\u2019s determination that the check was strange and defendant\u2019s admissions regarding how he obtained the check are both circumstantial evidence of some sort of malfeasance, they are not specifically evidence of forgery. As there was insufficient evidence of forgery, the elements of uttering a forged instrument were not shown by the State. See Hill, 31 N.C. App. at 249, 229 S.E.2d at 810. Furthermore, without evidence of forgery, we find no other facts in the record upon which the State could establish the essential element of \u201cfalse pretenses\u201d for purposes of the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses. Wright, 200 N.C. App. at 586, 685 S.E.2d at 115. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying defend- \u25a0 ant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nIII. Conclusion\nFor the foregoing reasons, we vacate. As we are vacating defendant\u2019s convictions, we need not address his other issues on appeal.\nVACATED.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge ERVIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STROUD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Seth P Rosebrock, for the State.", "Daniel M. Blau, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREGORY MARK BROWN\nNo. COA11-659\n(Filed 6 December 2011)\nForgery \u2014 evidence not sufficient \u2014 elements of uttering and false pretenses not satisfied\nThe trial court erred by not dismissing charges for uttering a forged instrument and obtaining property by false pretenses where there was insufficient evidence of forgery. The evidence cited by the State may have indicated some sort of wrongdoing, but did not demonstrate forgery.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered on or about 2 February 2011 by Judge W. Erwin Spainhour in Superior Court, Cabarrus County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 November 2011.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Seth P Rosebrock, for the State.\nDaniel M. Blau, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0380-01", "first_page_order": 390, "last_page_order": 394 }