State v. Dudley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Dudley

265 S.E.2d 235, 45 N.C. App. 295, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2616

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 19, 1980

DocketNo. 7920SC769

StatusPublished

This text of 265 S.E.2d 235 (State v. Dudley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dudley, 265 S.E.2d 235, 45 N.C. App. 295, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2616 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

WELLS, Judge.

There is a fatal variance between the charge and the evidence. The warrant charging the offense proscribed under G.S. 14-223 must set forth in particular the duty the officer is performing or attempting to perform. State v. Wiggs, 269 N.C. 507, 153 S.E. 2d 84 (1967). Accord, State v. Waller, 37 N.C. App. 133, 245 S.E. 2d 808 (1978) (holding that although the duty must be stated for violations of G.S. 14-223, this requirement need not be met for violations of G.S. 14-33(a)).

The warrant charges that defendant “did . . . resist, delay and obstruct Curtis Rollins . . . [a]t the time said officer was discharging and attempting to discharge a duty of his office, to wit; conducting a search of the residence of William R. Dudley and Donna Strawn for stolen property.” As the state’s evidence clearly showed, Lt. Rollins was not engaged in conducting the search. His mere presence at the scene — standing in the door —does not show that he was engaged in the search then being conducted. It is the resisting or obstructing of an officer in the performance of some duty which is the gravamen of the offense charged in G.S. 14-223. State v. Kirby, 15 N.C. App. 480, 190 S.E. 2d 320 (1972), appeal dismissed, 281 N.C. 761, 191 S.E. 2d 363 (1972).

Vacated.

Judge Erwin concurs. Judge Martin (Robert M.) dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WELLS, Judge.

There is a fatal variance between the charge and the evidence. The warrant charging the offense proscribed under G.S. 14-223 must set forth in particular the duty the officer is performing or attempting to perform. State v. Wiggs, 269 N.C. 507, 153 S.E. 2d 84 (1967). Accord, State v. Waller, 37 N.C. App. 133, 245 S.E. 2d 808 (1978) (holding that although the duty must be stated for violations of G.S. 14-223, this requirement need not be met for violations of G.S. 14-33(a)).

The warrant charges that defendant “did . . . resist, delay and obstruct Curtis Rollins . . . [a]t the time said officer was discharging and attempting to discharge a duty of his office, to wit; conducting a search of the residence of William R. Dudley and Donna Strawn for stolen property.” As the state’s evidence clearly showed, Lt. Rollins was not engaged in conducting the search. His mere presence at the scene — standing in the door —does not show that he was engaged in the search then being conducted. It is the resisting or obstructing of an officer in the performance of some duty which is the gravamen of the offense charged in G.S. 14-223. State v. Kirby, 15 N.C. App. 480, 190 S.E. 2d 320 (1972), appeal dismissed, 281 N.C. 761, 191 S.E. 2d 363 (1972).

Vacated.

Judge Erwin concurs. Judge Martin (Robert M.) dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 S.E.2d 235, 45 N.C. App. 295, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dudley-ncctapp-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack