{ "id": 12169123, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS CRAIG CAMPBELL, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Campbell", "decision_date": "2014-07-01", "docket_number": "No. COA13-1404", "first_page": "551", "last_page": "561", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "234 N.C. App. 551" } ], "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": "666 S.E.2d 648", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641904, 12641905, 12641903 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/666/0648-02", "/se2d/666/0648-03", "/se2d/666/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12641905, 12641908, 12641902, 12641903 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/666/0648-03", "/se2d/666/0650-02", "/se2d/666/0647-03", "/se2d/666/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "660 S.E.2d 566", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640923 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" }, { "page": "572" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/660/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "622 S.E.2d 624", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634533, 12634534, 12634535 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/622/0624-01", "/se2d/622/0624-02", "/se2d/622/0624-03" ] }, { "cite": "614 S.E.2d 412", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633144 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/614/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "579 S.E.2d 250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 155", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491470 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0155-01" ] }, { "cite": "571 S.E.2d 35", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37-38", "parenthetical": "discussing the rebut-table McBryde inference and holding that evidence of intoxication alone is insufficient to rebut it" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. App. 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9251249 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "675-76", "parenthetical": "discussing the rebut-table McBryde inference and holding that evidence of intoxication alone is insufficient to rebut it" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/153/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "335 S.E.2d 318", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4694145, 4695397, 4692777, 4687245, 4687927 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0545-03", "/nc/314/0545-02", "/nc/314/0545-01", "/nc/314/0545-05", "/nc/314/0545-04" ] }, { "cite": "330 S.E.2d 68", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "68, 70" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 N.C. App. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525136 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133, 135" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/75/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 S.E.2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 165", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4728461 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0165-01" ] }, { "cite": "348 S.E.2d 167", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "169", "parenthetical": "holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where defendant believed house to be that of his girlfriend and nothing in the dwelling had been disturbed" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 N.C. App. 749", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8359974 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "751", "parenthetical": "holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where defendant believed house to be that of his girlfriend and nothing in the dwelling had been disturbed" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/82/0749-01" ] }, { "cite": "303 S.E.2d 230", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "232", "parenthetical": "holding that there was sufficient evidence of innocent intent where both the State's and defendant's evidence showed that the defendant was coerced at knifepoint to enter" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 N.C. App. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522877 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434", "parenthetical": "holding that there was sufficient evidence of innocent intent where both the State's and defendant's evidence showed that the defendant was coerced at knifepoint to enter" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/62/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 S.E.2d 383", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "385", "parenthetical": "evidence sufficient to preclude inference where the defendant did not flee when discovered, explained that he was looking for a particular person, and left when requested" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 700", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621799 ], "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "703", "parenthetical": "evidence sufficient to preclude inference where the defendant did not flee when discovered, explained that he was looking for a particular person, and left when requested" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0700-01" ] }, { "cite": "749 S.E.2d 507", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2013, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "509", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 S.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "887", "parenthetical": "remanding for entry of judgment on misdemeanor breaking or entering where evidence was sufficient to support that offense, but not felonious intent" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567633 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291", "parenthetical": "remanding for entry of judgment on misdemeanor breaking or entering where evidence was sufficient to support that offense, but not felonious intent" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 S.E.2d 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353", "parenthetical": "applying the McBryde presumption where the defendant pushed in a windowpane to retrieve a key, cut telephone wires, was familiar with the layout of the house, and fled when confronted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567721 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236", "parenthetical": "applying the McBryde presumption where the defendant pushed in a windowpane to retrieve a key, cut telephone wires, was familiar with the layout of the house, and fled when confronted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S.E.2d 583", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588-89" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561810 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 S.E.2d 295", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 N.C. App. 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551957 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/38/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 S.E.2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "191", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "190", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557466 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "173-74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0171-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 S.E. 925", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1887, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "927", "parenthetical": "establishing that an inference of felonious intent may be made where a defendant breaks into a dwelling at night with \"no explanatory facts or circumstances\"" }, { "page": "927" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 N.C. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650537 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1887, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "397", "parenthetical": "establishing that an inference of felonious intent may be made where a defendant breaks into a dwelling at night with \"no explanatory facts or circumstances\"" }, { "page": "397" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/97/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "292 S.E.2d 11", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 590", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572551, 8572522, 8572458, 8572502, 8572474 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0590-05", "/nc/305/0590-04", "/nc/305/0590-01", "/nc/305/0590-03", "/nc/305/0590-02" ] }, { "cite": "285 S.E.2d 617", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "619" }, { "page": "619", "parenthetical": "concluding that there was sufficient evidence to survive a motion to dismiss where the defendant broke through a window, cut through a screen, and fled when discovered" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 N.C. App. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527258 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "351" }, { "page": "351" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/55/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 N.C. App. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4158934 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "109" }, { "page": "109" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/190/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 S.E.2d 354", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "357", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "357" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 N.C. App. 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522695 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "199", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "199" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/80/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-54", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-54.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "705 S.E.2d 394", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "397", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "398" }, { "page": "398", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "398" }, { "page": "397" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. App. 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4181110 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "545", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "546" }, { "page": "546" }, { "page": "546" }, { "page": "545" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/208/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 N.C. 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698408 ], "year": 1878, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "659", "parenthetical": "holding that where an indictment alleges multiple owners, the State must prove that there were in fact multiple owners" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/79/0656-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N.C. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682508 ], "year": 1876, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "273", "parenthetical": "\"If one is charged with stealing the property of A, it will not do to prove that he stole the joint property of A and B.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/74/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 S.E.2d 365", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "370", "parenthetical": "\"If the person alleged in the indictment to have a property interest in the stolen property is not the owner or special owner of it, there is a fatal variance entitling defendant to a nonsuit.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 578", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571244 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "585", "parenthetical": "\"If the person alleged in the indictment to have a property interest in the stolen property is not the owner or special owner of it, there is a fatal variance entitling defendant to a nonsuit.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0578-01" ] }, { "cite": "590 S.E.2d 408", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. App. 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8917151 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/162/0350-01" ] }, { "cite": "720 S.E.2d 437", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "440", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "441" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "723 S.E.2d 798", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "801", "parenthetical": "citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3792929, 3788866, 3790212, 3789894, 3791562, 3791637, 3788407, 3796378, 3797567 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0073-04", "/nc/360/0073-05", "/nc/360/0073-07", "/nc/360/0073-08", "/nc/360/0073-06", "/nc/360/0073-09", "/nc/360/0073-02", "/nc/360/0073-01", "/nc/360/0073-03" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.C. App. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8436763 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "331" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/171/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "693 S.E.2d 157", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "165" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. App. 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4177118 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "49" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/204/0037-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "143", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2518881 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "339", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0315-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1045, "char_count": 26400, "ocr_confidence": 0.712, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.613312484627107e-08, "percentile": 0.4039303063614906 }, "sha256": "24cd8631c20f2ee8c7430b01b4e55762cdd8cc397c771130929f487ab25872a7", "simhash": "1:9b3b5430f236597a", "word_count": 4367 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:30:06.319137+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges STEPHENS and McCULLOUGH concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS CRAIG CAMPBELL, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nThomas Campbell (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from the judgment entered after a Cleveland County jury found him guilty of larceny and breaking or entering a place of religious worship. We vacate defendant\u2019s larceny conviction and reverse his conviction for breaking or entering a place of religious worship. We remand for entry of judgment and resentencing on misdemeanor breaking or entering.\nI. Background\nOn 8 October 2012, defendant was indicted for breaking or entering a place of religious worship and larceny after breaking or entering. The larceny indictment alleged that on 15 August 2012 defendant \u201cwillfully and feloniously did steal, take, and carry away a music receiver, microphones, and sounds [sic] system wires, the personal property of Andy Stephens and Manna Baptist Church, pursuant to a breaking or entering in violation of N.C.G.S. 14-54.1(a).\u201d Defendant pled not guilty and proceeded to jury trial.\nAt trial, the State\u2019s evidence tended to show that Pastor Andy Stephens of Manna Baptist Church, located on Burke Road in Shelby, North Carolina, discovered after Sunday services on 19 August 2012 that a receiver, several microphones, and audio cords were missing. The cords were usually located at the front of the church, by the sound system, or in the baptistery changing area. It appeared that the sound system had been opened up and items inside had been moved around. Pastor Stephens found a wallet in the baptistery changing area that contained a driver\u2019s license belonging to defendant.\nPastor Stephens testified that when the church secretary arrived on Thursday morning earlier that week, she had noticed that the door was unlocked. She assumed that it had been left unlocked after Wednesday night services, which had ended around 9 p.m. Although the front door is normally locked at night, on cross-examination, Pastor Stephens admitted that the church door had been left unlocked overnight before. Pastor Stephens said that the secretary did not notice anything amiss on Thursday morning.\nAfter Pastor Stephens realized that the audio equipment was missing he called the Cleveland County Sheriff\u2019s Office. Deputy Jordan Bowen responded to the scene. The deputy examined the premises but found no signs of forced entry. He recovered defendant\u2019s wallet from the pastor.\nInvestigator Jessica Woosley went to speak with defendant at the Cleveland County Detention Center, where he was being held on an unrelated breaking or entering charge. When Investigator Woosley introduced herself, defendant said, \u201cthis can\u2019t possibly be good. What have I done now that I don\u2019t remember?\u201d Investigator Woosley read defendant his Miranda rights and defendant invoked his right to counsel. Investigator Woosley tried to end the interview, but defendant continued talking.\nDefendant admitted that he had been to Manna Baptist Church on the night in question, but stated that he could not remember what he had done there. He explained that he had mental issues and blacked out at times. Defendant claimed to be a religious man who had been \u201con a spiritual journey.\u201d He said that he remembered the door to the church being open, but that he did not remember doing anything wrong.\nAfter speaking with defendant, Investigator Woosley searched through a pawn shop database for any transactions involving items matching those missing from the church but did not find anything. The missing items were never recovered.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the charges. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant then elected to present evidence and testify on his own behalf. Defendant testified that he was a 51 year old man with a high school education and one semester of college. He said that on 15 August 2012, he had been asked to leave the home he was living in, so he packed his possessions in a duffel bag and left. He started walking toward a friend\u2019s house but dropped the bag in a ditch because it was too heavy to carry long-distance.\nAround midnight, defendant arrived at his friend\u2019s house, but his friend\u2019s girlfriend asked him to leave, so he did. Defendant continued walking down the road until he came upon the church. He noticed that the door was cracked slightly and a \u201csliver of light\u201d was emanating from within. Defendant explained that after all his walking, he was thirsty and tired, so he went into the church looking for water and sanctuary. He said that while he was inside, he got some water, prayed, and slept. He claimed that he did not intend to take anything and did not take anything when he left around daybreak.\nAfter leaving the church, defendant began walking down the road again. He soon began having chest pains and called 911. Defendant explained that he was on a variety of medications at the time, including powerful psychotropic medication. An ambulance arrived and took him to Cleveland Memorial Hospital.\nCalvin Cobb, the Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) who responded to defendant\u2019s call, also testified on defendant\u2019s behalf. Mr. Cobb said that they received a dispatch call around 6:30 a.m. When they arrived at the intersection of Burke Road and River Hill Road, they saw defendant near an open field, sitting on the back of a fire truck that had been first to respond. Defendant told Mr. Cobb that he had been wandering all night. Mr. Cobb noticed that defendant looked disheveled and worn out, and that defendant had worn through the soles of his shoes. Mr. Cobb did not see defendant carrying anything and did not find anything in his pockets.\nAfter defendant rested his case, the State called another officer in rebuttal. The State wanted to offer his testimony regarding defendant\u2019s prior breaking or entering arrest. The trial court asked the State to explain the relevance of the prior incident. The State argued that it contradicted part of defendant\u2019s testimony regarding what happened before he got to the church, but did not elaborate on how it contradicted defendant\u2019s testimony and did not otherwise explain its relevance. The trial court excluded the rebuttal testimony under Rule 403. At the close of all the evidence, defendant renewed his motion to dismiss all charges, which the trial court again denied.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of both charges. The trial court consolidated the charges for judgment and sentenced defendant to a split sentence of 13-25 months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months of supervised probation, and an active term of 140 days in jail. Defendant gave timely written notice of appeal.\nII. Larceny Indictment\nDefendant first argues that the larceny indictment on which he was tried was fatally defective because it \u201cfailed to allege that Manna Baptist Church was an entity capable of owning property.\u201d We agree.\n\u201cIt is well settled that a valid bill of indictment is essential to the jurisdiction of the trial court to try an accused for a felony.\u201d State v. Abraham, 338 N.C. 315, 339, 451 S.E.2d 131, 143 (1994) (citation and quotation marks omitted). \u201cA challenge to the facial validity of an indictment may be brought at any time, and need not be raised at trial for preservation on appeal.\u201d State v. LePage, 204 N.C. App. 37, 49, 693 S.E.2d 157, 165 (2010).\n\u201cAn indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the crime sought to be charged.\u201d State v. Ledwell, 171 N.C. App. 328, 331, 614 S.E.2d 412, 414 (citation and quotation marks omitted), disc. rev. denied, 360 N.C. 73, 622 S.E.2d 624 (2005). \u201cThe essential elements of larceny are that the defendant (1) took the property of another; (2) carried it away; (3) without the owner\u2019s consent; and (4) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.\u201d State v. Justice, _ N.C. App. _, _, 723 S.E.2d 798, 801 (2012) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). \u201c[A]n indictment for larceny which fails to allege the ownership of the property either in a natural person or a legal entity capable of owning property is defective.\u201d State v. Abbott, _ N.C. App. _, _, 720 S.E.2d 437, 440 (2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).\nHere, the indictment alleged two owners of the stolen property\u2014 Andy Stephens and Manna Baptist Church. Andy Stephens is a natural person, but the indictment does not allege that Manna Baptist Church is a legal entity capable of owning property. Failure to include such an allegation is normally fatal to the indictment. See State v. Cathey, 162 N.C. App. 350, 353, 590 S.E.2d 408, 410 (2004). The inclusion of Pastor Stephens as co-owner does not cure the omission here.\nWhere an indictment alleges two owners of the stolen property, the State must prove that each owner had at least some property interest in it. See State v. Greene, 289 N.C. 578, 585, 223 S.E.2d 365, 370 (1976) (\u201cIf the person alleged in the indictment to have a property interest in the stolen property is not the owner or special owner of it, there is a fatal variance entitling defendant to a nonsuit.\u201d); State v. Burgess, 74 N.C. 272, 273 (1876) (\u201cIf one is charged with stealing the property of A, it will not do to prove that he stole the joint property of A and B.\u201d); State v. Hill, 79 N.C. 656, 659 (1878) (holding that where an indictment alleges multiple owners, the State must prove that there were in fact multiple owners). If one of the owners were incapable of owning property, the State necessarily would be unable to prove that both alleged owners had a property interest. Therefore, where the indictment alleges multiple owners, one of whom is not a natural person, failure to allege that such an owner has the ability to own property is fatal to the indictment. Consequently, the indictment here is fatally flawed and defendant\u2019s conviction for larceny must be vacated. See Abbott, _ N.C. App. at _, 720 S.E.2d at 441.\nIII. Breaking or Entering a Place of Worship\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of felony breaking or entering a place of worship because there was insufficient evidence of his intent to commit larceny therein. We agree.\nWhen ruling on a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, drawing all reasonable inferences in the State\u2019s favor. Any contradictions or conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the State, and evidence unfavorable to the State is not considered. The trial court must decide only whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged and of the defendant's] being the perpetrator of the offense. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. When the evidence raises no more than a suspicion of guilt, a motion to dismiss should be granted. However, so long as the evidence supports a reasonable inference of the defendant\u2019s guilt, a motion to dismiss is properly denied even though the evidence also permits a reasonable inference of the defendant\u2019s innocence.\nState v. Chillo, 208 N.C. App. 541, 545, 705 S.E.2d 394, 397 (2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted).\nA person commits the felony of breaking or entering a place of worship if he \u201c[1] wrongfully breaks or enters [2] any building that is a place of religious worship [3] with intent to commit any felony or larceny therein.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-54.1(a) (2011). There are two lesser-included offenses to this charge: felony breaking or entering under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-54(a) (2011), which lacks the \u201cplace of religious worship\u201d element, and misdemeanor breaking or entering under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-54(b) (2011), which lacks both the \u201cplace of religious worship\u201d element and the intent element.\nDefendant does not contend that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he wrongfully entered a place of religious worship. He argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of intent to commit a larceny therein.\n\u201cIntent is a mental attitude seldom provable by direct evidence. It must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred.\u201d Chillo, 208 N.C. App. at 546, 705 S.E.2d at 398. \u201cThe intent with which an accused broke and entered may be found by the jury from evidence as to what he did within the [building].\u201d State v. Brewer, 80 N.C. App. 195, 199, 341 S.E.2d 354, 357 (1986) (citation and quotation marks omitted). \u201cFor example, the intent to commit larceny may be inferred from the fact that defendant committed larceny.\u201d Chillo, 208 N.C. App. at 546, 705 S.E.2d at 398 (citation and quotation marks omitted). \u201cFurther, a defendant\u2019s possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is a circumstance tending to show him guilty of the larceny.\u201d State v. Baskin, 190 N.C. App. 102, 109, 660 S.E.2d 566, 572 (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted), disc. rev. denied, 362 N.C. 475, 666 S.E.2d 648 (2008). Finally, \u201c[i]n the absence of a showing of a lawful motive, an intent to commit larceny may be reasonably inferred from an unlawful entry.\u201d State v. Quilliams, 55 N.C. App. 349, 351, 285 S.E.2d 617, 619, cert. denied, 305 N.C. 590, 292 S.E.2d 11 (1982); see State v. McBryde, 97 N.C. 393, 397, 1 S.E. 925, 927 (1887) (establishing that an inference of felonious intent may be made where a defendant breaks into a dwelling at night with \u201cno explanatory facts or circumstances\u201d). However, this inference may be precluded by evidence of facts or circumstances that reveal an innocent reason for the defendant\u2019s entering into the building.\nThe presumption, or inference as it is more properly called, is one of fact and not of law. The inference derived from [an unlawful entry] is to be considered by the jury merely as an evidential fact, along with the other evidence in the case, in determining whether the State has carried the burden of satisfying the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant\u2019s guilt. Proof of [unlawful entry] by the State does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant but the burden remains with the State to demonstrate defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.\nState v. Fair, 291 N.C. 171, 173, 229 S.E.2d 189, 191 (1976) (citations omitted).\nHere, defendant admitted entering the church, but he explained that he entered to seek sanctuary, drink water, and pray. Defendant testified that the door to the church was unlocked when he arrived there. He stated that he saw that the door was slightly ajar and that a \u201csliver of light\u201d was coming from within. He testified that he did not enter intending to steal anything and did not in fact steal anything. None of the State\u2019s evidence contradicts this testimony. Pastor Stephens testified that when the church secretary arrived on the morning of 20 August 2012, she found the front door unlocked. There were no signs of forced entry. Pastor Stephens admitted that the door could have been left unlocked accidentally after Wednesday night services, which ended around 9 p.m.\nDefendant testified that he arrived at the church after 12 a.m. and set back out on the road around sunrise, but that shortly thereafter he began having chest pains and called 911. Mr. Cobb, the EMT who responded to defendant\u2019s call, testified that he was dispatched around 6:30 a.m. At the time, defendant was near an open field at the intersection of Burke Road and River Hill Road. The church is also located on Burke Road, though its distance from the intersection is not clear from the testimony. When Mr. Cobb arrived, defendant was sitting on the back of a fire truck, which had responded first. Defendant looked disheveled and worn out. He had worn through the soles of his shoes. Defendant explained to Mr. Cobb that he had been wandering all night. Mr. Cobb testified that defendant was not carrying anything and did not have anything in his pockets.\nFour days later, after Sunday services, Pastor Stephens noticed that an audio receiver, some microphones, and some audio cords were missing. These items were kept at various places around the church, including by the sound system, in the front of the church, and in the baptistery changing area, where defendant\u2019s wallet was found. Investigator Woosley checked a pawn shop database, but found no reports of items matching those missing from the church. Neither the officers nor any of the church staff searched the area around the church for the missing items. The items were never recovered.\nWhen Investigator Woosley spoke with defendant at the Cleveland County Detention Center, defendant admitted that he had been to the church, but stated that he could not remember what he had done there. Defendant explained that he was a religious man and that \u201che had been on a spiritual [journey].\u201d He admitted having periodic blackouts related to his mental health issues and medications, but never admitted taking anything from the church or entering the church with intent to steal. He said that he remembered going to the church and that the church door was open when he got there, but that he did not remember doing anything wrong once inside.\nWe conclude that these facts are sufficient \u201cexplanatory facts and circumstances\u201d to preclude the McBryde inference. See McBryde, 97 N.C. at 397, 1 S.E. at 927; Lamson, 75 N.C. App. at 135, 330 S.E.2d at 70. Unlike in the cases finding the evidence sufficient to infer intent from the breaking or entering alone, there was evidence of innocent intent and no evidence that defendant was discovered in the church and fled from the building. Cf. State v. Hill, 38 N.C. App. 75, 78, 247 S.E.2d 295, 297 (1978). Instead, he called 911 from a location near the church. There was no evidence that defendant attacked occupants of the building. Cf. State v. Accor, 277 N.C. 65, 73, 175 S.E.2d 583, 588-89 (1970). There was no evidence that defendant entered the building in a manner consistent with criminal intent\u2014he entered through an unlocked front door. Cf. State v. Hedrick, 289 N.C. 232, 236, 221 S.E.2d 350, 353 (1976) (applying the McBryde presumption where the defendant pushed in a windowpane to retrieve a key, cut telephone wires, was familiar with the layout of the house, and fled when confronted); Quilliams, 55 N.C. App. at 351, 285 S.E.2d at 619 (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to survive a motion to dismiss where the defendant broke through a window, cut through a screen, and fled when discovered).\n\u201cInference may not be based on inference. Every inference must stand upon some clear and direct evidence, and not upon some other inference or presumption.\u201d Fair, 291 N.C. at 173-74, 229 S.E.2d at 190 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, there was no evidence to contradict the innocent \u201cfacts and circumstances\u201d offered by defendant. Therefore, the State was not entitled to rely on the McBryde inference to meet its burden.\nAbsent such an inference, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient, even taken in the light most favorable to the State, to show that defendant entered the church with intent to commit larceny. Brewer, 80 N.C. App. at 199, 341 S.E.2d at 357. The church was unlocked for over three hours before defendant arrived. There was no evidence of forced entry. Several hours later, when Mr. Cobb encountered defendant on the same road as the church, defendant was not carrying anything. None of the church staff noticed that the items were missing until four days later, after Sunday services. There was no evidence that defendant tried to sell the items in local pawn shops. There was no evidence that defendant touched the audio system. In fact, the State presented no evidence that showed defendant ever possessed the missing items. Cf. Chillo, 208 N.C. App. at 546, 705 S.E.2d at 398; Baskin, 190 N.C. App. at 109, 660 S.E.2d at 572.\nWe hold that the State failed to meet its burden as to the intent element of felonious breaking or entering a place of worship. The evidence is insufficient to support a reasonable inference that defendant entered the church with intent to commit larceny. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence here \u201craises no more than a suspicion of guilt.\u201d Chillo, 208 N.C. App. at 545, 705 S.E.2d at 397. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence. See id.\nAlthough there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for felonious breaking or entering, as defendant concedes, there was ample evidence to support a conviction for misdemeanor breaking or entering. Therefore, we remand for entry of judgment on that offense and resentencing. See State v. Dawkins, 305 N.C. 289, 291, 287 S.E.2d 885, 887 (1982) (remanding for entry of judgment on misdemeanor breaking or entering where evidence was sufficient to support that offense, but not felonious intent).\nIV. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel\nDefendant next argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to move in limine to exclude evidence that he had been arrested on an unrelated breaking or entering charge and initially failed to object to introduction of that evidence at trial. When his trial counsel did object to the State\u2019s attempt to call a witness in rebuttal to testify regarding the other charge, the trial court sustained the objection under Rule 403.\nTo prevail in a claim for [ineffective assistance of counsel], a defendant must show that his (1) counsel\u2019s performance was deficient, meaning it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, meaning counsel\u2019s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.\nState v. Smith, _ N.C. App. _, _, 749 S.E.2d 507, 509 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted).\nThe relevance of the objected-to evidence here relates\u2014at very best\u2014to the defendant\u2019s intent to commit larceny upon entering the church. Given our disposition of the breaking or entering charge, defendant cannot show prejudice from any failure of his trial counsel to object to this evidence. Therefore, he is not entitled to a new trial.\nV. Conclusion\nFor the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court was without jurisdiction to try defendant on the larceny charge and that it erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the felony breaking or entering charge. Because there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for misdemeanor breaking or entering, we remand for entry of judgment and resentencing on that offense.\nVACATED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.\nJudges STEPHENS and McCULLOUGH concur.\n. See, e.g., State v. Cook, 242 N.C. 700, 703, 89 S.E.2d 383, 385 (1955) (evidence sufficient to preclude inference where the defendant did not flee when discovered, explained that he was looking for a particular person, and left when requested), State v. Moore, 62 N.C. App. 431, 434, 303 S.E.2d 230, 232 (1983) (holding that there was sufficient evidence of innocent intent where both the State\u2019s and defendant\u2019s evidence showed that the defendant was coerced at knifepoint to enter), State v. Humphries, 82 N.C. App. 749, 751, 348 S.E.2d 167, 169 (1986) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where defendant believed house to be that of his girlfriend and nothing in the dwelling had been disturbed), disc. rev. dismissed, 320 N.C. 165, 357 S.E.2d 359 (1987), State v. Lamson, 75 N.C. App. 132, 133, 135, 330 S.E.2d 68, 68, 70 (holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where he tried to enter the house drunk and was staying at the neighboring house), disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 545, 335 S.E.2d 318 (1985); see also, State v. Keitt, 153 N.C. App. 671, 675-76, 571 S.E.2d 35, 37-38 (2002) (discussing the rebut-table McBryde inference and holding that evidence of intoxication alone is insufficient to rebut it), aff\u2019d per curiam, 357 N.C. 155, 579 S.E.2d 250 (2003).\n. Defendant did admit that he had previously broken into a residence, but there was no evidence that this offense had anything to do with the church, that it was in the same vicinity, or that it was uniquely similar to the facts here. Indeed, when the State attempted to elaborate on this other offense in rebuttal, the trial court excluded this evidence under Rule 403.", "type": "majority", "author": "STROUD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney GeneralRoy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Allison A. Angel\u00ed, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Jason Christopher Yoder, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS CRAIG CAMPBELL, Defendant\nNo. COA13-1404\nFiled 1 July 2014\n1. Indictment and Information\u2014larceny\u2014fatally flawed\u2014 failure to allege entity capable of property ownership\nDefendant\u2019s conviction for larceny was vacated where the indictment was fatally flawed because it failed to allege that Manna Baptist Church was an entity capable of owning property. Where an indictment alleges multiple owners, one of whom is not a natural person, failure to allege that such an owner has the ability to own property is fatal to the indictment.\n2. Burglary and Unlawful Breaking or Entering\u2014insufficient evidence\u2014intent to commit larceny therein\nThe trial court erred by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of felony breaking or entering a place of worship because there was insufficient evidence of his intent to commit larceny therein. However, there was ample evidence to support a conviction for misdemeanor breaking or entering and the case was remanded for entry of judgment on that offense and resentencing.\n3. Constitutional Law\u2014effective assistance of counsel\u2014failure to move to exclude evidence\u2014not prejudicial\nDefendant\u2019s argument that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in a larceny and breaking or entering a place of religious worship case was overruled. Although trial counsel failed to move in limine to exclude evidence that defendant had been arrested on an unrelated breaking or entering charge and initially failed to object to introduction of that evidence at trial, there was insufficient evidence of defendant\u2019s intent to commit larceny therein and defendant could not show prejudice from any failure of his trial counsel to object to this evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from Judgment entered on or about 12 June 2013 by Judge Linwood O. Foust in Superior Court, Cleveland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 May 2014.\nAttorney GeneralRoy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Allison A. Angel\u00ed, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Jason Christopher Yoder, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0551-01", "first_page_order": 561, "last_page_order": 571 }