IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA24-704
Filed 2 July 2025
Onslow County, No. 22CRS316040
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
NICOLAS GANNAR FRENCH
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 7 December 2023 by Judge
Robert C. Roupe in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
10 April 2025.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney Generals Lisa T. Pakela, Melody R. Hairston, and Christopher R. McLennan, for the State.
Law Office of John W. King, Jr. PLLC, by John W. Moss, for the defendant- appellant.
TYSON, Judge.
Nicolas French (“Defendant”) appeals from the jury’s verdicts and the final
judgments entered thereon for assault by strangulation, assault on a female, and
assault inflicting serious injury. Our review discerns no error.
I. Background
Defendant and Christine Riley (“Ms. Riley”) were married in October 2016.
Defendant moved into Ms. Riley’s home during May 2017. Both Defendant and Ms.
Riley testified, but each gave differing accounts of events, which occurred on 4 STATE V. FRENCH
Opinion of the Court
October 2022. Defendant and Ms. Riley were home and Defendant began drinking
alcohol. Ms. Riley asked Defendant to stop drinking and told him to leave and stay
out of the house if he planned to continue drinking. Defendant left to go to a
neighbor’s house.
Ms. Riley further testified she was awoken by Defendant banging on the back
door of their home at around 11:20 p.m. or 11:30 p.m. He was demanding to come
inside and requested his phone. Ms. Riley answered and again told Defendant, if he
was going to continue drinking, she did not want him inside the house. She went
inside to retrieve his phone.
When Ms. Riley returned with his phone, Defendant forced his way into the
home and began to strike her on the right side of her head. Defendant put his hands
around her neck and applied pressure. The two fell onto the floor. Ms. Riley was able
to break free from Defendant and ran away.
Defendant caught up with Ms. Riley and pushed her into the kitchen stove,
keeping one hand around her throat while using his other to strike her in the ribs
and stomach. Ms. Riley was again able to get away from Defendant and ran towards
the living room.
Defendant knocked her into an area between the kitchen and living room,
pushed her onto the floor, and got on top of her. Defendant again placed his hands
around Ms. Riley’s neck and throat, making it difficult for her to breathe. Ms. Riley
testified this assault lasted at least 45 seconds. Ms. Riley was able to get away for
-2- STATE V. FRENCH
yet a third time and ran into the living room to call 911 for help.
Defendant saw Ms. Riley speaking on the phone and briefly left the house
before returning. Officers from the Jacksonville Police Department and EMS shortly
arrived at the scene. Defendant was restrained and placed under arrest. Ms. Riley
drove herself to and was treated at Onslow Memorial Hospital the following day.
On 7 March 2023, Defendant was indicted on charges of assault by
strangulation and assault on a female. A superseding indictment was entered on 3
October 2023 on charges of assault by strangulation, assault on a female, and assault
with a dangerous weapon inflicting serious injury. The jury found Defendant guilty
of assault by strangulation, assault on a female, and guilty of the lesser-included
offense of assault inflicting serious injury.
On 7 December 2023, Defendant was sentenced in the presumptive range as a
prior record level I offender to an active term of 6 months to 17 months for the offense
of assault by strangulation. Defendant was also sentenced to an active term of 60
days for assault on a female, which was set to run consecutively to his first sentence.
Defendant was lastly sentenced to an active term of 60 days for assault inflicting
serious injury, which was set to run consecutively to his second sentence. Defendant
appeals.
II. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction lies in this court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b) and 15A-
1444(a) (2023).
-3- STATE V. FRENCH
III. Issues
Defendant was charged with and convicted of three separate assaults.
Defendant argues the State failed to present substantial evidence indicating the
assaults were distinct incidents and asserts the trial court erred in denying
Defendant’s motion to dismiss two of the three assault charges. Defendant also
contends he was improperly sentenced separately and consecutively for assault by
strangulation, assault on a female, and assault inflicting serious injury, in violation
of the General Assembly’s statutory mandates.
IV. Motion to Dismiss
Defendant moved to dismiss all charges at the close of the evidence. The trial
court denied the motion. Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his
motion to dismiss two of the three assault charges. Defendant contends his assaults
on Ms. Riley occurred “during one continuous interaction,” the State presented
evidence of only a single assault, and the State had failed to offer sufficient evidence
to support the other two separate assaults for which Defendant was charged and
convicted.
A. Standard of Review
“Whether the State presented substantial evidence of each essential element
of the offense is a question of law.” State v. Crockett, 368 N.C. 717, 720, 782 S.E.2d
878, 881 (2016) (internal citations omitted). This Court “reviews the trial court’s
denial of a motion to dismiss de novo.” State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650
-4- STATE V. FRENCH
S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007). “In making its determination, the trial court must consider all
evidence admitted, whether competent or incompetent, in the light most favorable to
the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving any
contradiction in its favor.” State v. Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 223
(1994).
B. Analysis
Defendant asserts the State’s evidence shows only one assault occurred, with
no distinct interruption from beginning to end. Defendant argues the State’s evidence
was insufficient to prove multiple assaults, and the trial court erred when it failed to
dismiss all but one of the assault charges.
To survive a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of the evidence, the State
must present “substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense
charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant being the
perpetrator of such offense.” State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455
(2000) (internal citations omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v.
Blake, 319 N.C. 599, 604, 356 S.E.2d 352, 355 (1987) (citation and quotation marks
omitted). “Circumstantial evidence may withstand a motion to dismiss and support
a conviction even when the evidence does not rule out every hypothesis of innocence.”
State v. Stone, 323 N.C. 447, 452, 373 S.E.2d 430, 433 (1988).
The relevant question is whether the State presented substantial evidence of
-5- STATE V. FRENCH
not just one, but three, distinct assaults. Defendant was charged with assault by
strangulation, assault on a female, and assault with a dangerous weapon inflicting
serious injury. The crime of assault is defined by common law rules as:
[A]n overt act or an attempt, or the unequivocal appearance of an attempt, with force and violence, to do some immediate physical injury to the person of another, which show of force or menace of violence must be sufficient to put a person of reasonable firmness in fear of immediate bodily harm.
State v. Dew, 379 N.C. 64, 70, 864 S.E.2d 268, 273-74 (2021).
“[T]he State may charge a defendant with multiple counts of assault only when
there is substantial evidence that a distinct interruption occurred between assaults.”
Dew, 379 N.C. at 72, 864 S.E.2d at 275. “[A] distinct interruption may take the form
of an intervening event, a lapse of time in which a reasonable person could calm down,
an interruption in the momentum of the attack, a change in location, or some other
clear break delineating the end of one assault and the beginning of another.” Id. at
72, 275.
Defendant argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence of separate
assaults, but rather only showed proof of one continuous assault. The State argues
two distinct interruptions took place, resulting in three separate assaults.
We conclude the evidence supports the State’s contention. Testimony from Ms.
Riley asserted Defendant first assaulted her by pushing his way into the home and
immediately striking her on the right side of her head on 4 October 2022. Defendant
-6- STATE V. FRENCH
then put his hands around Ms. Riley’s neck and applied pressure before the two fell
onto the floor. The first distinct interruption of the attack occurred when Ms. Riley
briefly broke free, begged Defendant to stop, and told him he could stay at the house.
The evidence presented by the State regarding this distinct interruption,
specifically Ms. Riley’s testimony she had “managed to get up at that point [and] ran
over [while] begging him to stop,” is sufficient to show an “interruption in the
momentum of the attack.” Dew, 379 N.C. at 72, 864 S.E.2d at 275. This interruption
in the momentum delineates the end of the first assault and the beginning of the
second.
The State’s evidence further shows Defendant then pushed Ms. Riley up
against the kitchen stove, placed one hand around her throat and struck her in the
ribs and stomach with his other. The second distinct interruption in the second
attack occurred when Ms. Riley again escaped from Defendant and ran from the
kitchen stove toward a different area of the home between the kitchen and living
room. The evidence presented by Ms. Riley’s testimony tended to show she “managed
to get away . . . tried running toward the living room[,] and then he pushed [her] into
the area that’s between the kitchen and the living room.” This testimony, pursuant
to Dew, is sufficient to show “a change in location.” Id. This change in location of the
attack delineates the end of the second assault and the beginning of the third assault.
In this new area of the home, Defendant pushed Ms. Riley to the floor, got on
top of her, and again placed both hands around her neck, causing her to begin to lose
-7- STATE V. FRENCH
consciousness. Ms. Riley testified she kicked her legs in an attempt to stop the
assault until she was able to again get away and call the police, ending the third and
final assault.
The evidence presented supports each distinct interruption and is sufficient to
delineate the end of one assault and the beginning of another, showing both
interruptions in the momentum of the attacks and changes in the location of the home
where they occurred. These distinct interruptions occurred first when Ms. Riley ran
and begged Defendant to stop, and later, when Ms. Riley ran into a different area of
the home near the living room. The State also presented evidence supporting each
separate charge through documentary evidence, including pictures from 4 October
2022 and previous assaults, as well as testimonial evidence from Ms. Riley, medical
providers from Onslow Memorial Hospital, and law enforcement officers from
Jacksonville Police Department.
1. State v. Dew and State v. Robinson
Defendant argues State v. Dew and State v. Robinson supports his contention
only one continuous assault occurred. Dew, 379 N.C. 64, 864 S.E.2d 268; State v.
Robinson, 381 N.C. 207, 219, 872 S.E.2d 28, 37 (2022). Those cases are
distinguishable from the evidence here. In Dew, the victim testified the defendant
had hit her “‘over and over,’—a continuous non-stop beating—for at least two hours.”
Dew, 379 N.C. at 65, 864 S.E.2d at 270. In Robinson, the victim’s statement described
the attack as “continuous . . . without pause or interruption.” 381 N.C. at 219, 872
-8- STATE V. FRENCH
S.E.2d at 37.
During Ms. Riley’s testimony, she did not describe the attack as an ongoing
and continuous assault, but rather described two distinct interruptions, supporting
three separate assault charges. We conclude the trial court did not err in denying
Defendant’s motion to dismiss two of the three assault charges. The State presented
sufficient evidence to support presenting all three charges to the jury. Defendant’s
arguments are overruled.
V. Sentencing
Defendant was sentenced in the presumptive range to an active term of 6
months minimum to 17 months maximum for the offense of assault by strangulation;
to an active term of 60 days for assault on a female, consecutive to the first sentence;
and, to an active term of 60 days for assault inflicting serious injury consecutive to
the second sentence.
Defendant argues he was improperly sentenced separately and consecutively
for assault by strangulation under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-32.4(b), assault on a female
under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c)(2), and assault inflicting serious injury under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c)(1) in violation of the legislature’s statutory mandates. N.C. Gen.
Stat. §§ 14-32.4(b); 33(c)(1)-(2) (2023). Defendant contends the General Assembly
authorized punishment only once for the same assault through the language of these
statutes. Defendant further contends the trial court lacked statutory authority to
impose additional sentences for assault on a female and assault inflicting serious
-9- STATE V. FRENCH
injury by imposing consecutive active punishments on him after sentencing him for
the greater offense of assault by strangulation.
Defendant’s argument involves a question of statutory interpretation.
“Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which are reviewed de
novo by an appellate court.” State v. Jones, 237 N.C. App. 526, 530, 767 S.E.2d 341,
344 (2014) (citation omitted). “The prefatory clause of assault on a female statute . . .
imposed a statutory mandate that preserved for appellate review [D]efendant’s claim
that he could not be punished for [each assault] based on the same conduct, despite
his failure to object.” Id.; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c) (2023).
“When a trial court acts contrary to a statutory mandate, the defendant’s right
to appeal is preserved despite the defendant’s failure to object during trial.” State v.
Harding, 258 N.C. App. 306, 316, 813 S.E.2d 254, 262 (2018) (quoting State v.
Braxton, 352 N.C. 158, 177, 531 S.E.2d 428, 439 (2000) (citations and quotation marks
omitted)).
VI. Analysis
Defendant argues he was improperly punished because the beginning clause
of each statute under which he was convicted limits the trial court’s ability to impose
punishment for lesser assault offenses if a higher offense punishment is imposed for
a higher offense involving the same conduct. The State asserts Defendant was
properly sentenced because the trial court may impose punishment for multiple
- 10 - STATE V. FRENCH
assaults when sufficient evidence is presented of, and the jury finds, multiple
separate assaults occurred.
As noted, the jury found Defendant guilty of assault by strangulation under
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-32.4(b), assault on a female under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c)(2),
and the lesser included assault inflicting serious injury under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
33(c)(1). Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-32.4(b), “[u]nless the conduct is covered
under some other provision of law providing greater punishment, any person who
assaults another person and inflicts physical injury by strangulation is guilty of a
Class H felony.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-32.4(b) (2023).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c)(1) and (2) provide:
Unless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment, any person who commits any assault, assault and battery, or affray is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor if, in the course of the assault, assault and battery, or affray, he or she: (1) [i]nflicts serious injury upon another person or uses a deadly weapon; (2) [a]ssaults a female, he being a male person at least 18 years of age; . . . .
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c)(1) and (2) (2023).
Each statute begins with the clause “unless the conduct is covered under some
other provision of law providing greater punishment.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
32.4(b); and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c). Defendant contends this language indicates
the General Assembly intended for punishment to be imposed either for the more
serious offense or for the lesser offense, but not both. See id. “The intent of the
- 11 - STATE V. FRENCH
Legislature controls the interpretation of a statute [and] [w]hen a statute is
unambiguous, this Court will give effect to the words without resorting to judicial
construction.’” Jones, 237 N.C. App. at 530, 767 S.E.2d at 344 (quoting State v. Davis,
364 N.C. 297, 302, 698 S.E.2d 65, 68 (2010).
“In order for a criminal defendant to be charged and convicted of two separate
counts of assault stemming from one transaction,” in accord with double jeopardy
principles, “the evidence must establish ‘a distinct interruption in the original assault
followed by a second assault[,]’ so that the subsequent assault may be deemed
separate and distinct from the first.” Littlejohn, 158 N.C. App. at 635, 582 S.E.2d at
307 (quoting State v. Brooks, 138 N.C. App. 185, 189, 530 S.E.2d 849, 852 (2000)).
“[T]he evidence must show that ‘two separate and distinct assaults occurred’ in order
to support more than one charge.” State v. Prince, 271 N.C. App. 321, 324, 843 S.E.2d
700, 701, writ allowed, 375 N.C. 280, 842 S.E.2d 601 (2020) (quoting State v. McCoy,
174 N.C. App. 105, 116, 620 S.E.2d 863, 872 (2005)).
“[W]here multiple assaults occurring during one altercation may be ‘deemed
separate and distinct,’ multiple sentences based on those assaults may be imposed.”
Harding, 258 N.C. App. at 316, 813 S.E.2d at 262 (quoting State v. Littlejohn, 158
N.C. App. 628, 635, 582 S.E.2d 301, 307 (2003) (explaining that where multiple
assault convictions arise from “one transaction, the evidence must establish ‘a
distinct interruption in the original assault followed by a second assault[,]’ so that
the subsequent assault may be deemed separate and distinct from the first” (citation
- 12 - STATE V. FRENCH
omitted)). A trial court may sentence a defendant for multiple counts of assault when
there is substantial evidence of a distinct interruption between assaults. Id.; Dew,
379 N.C. at 65, 864 S.E.2d at 270.
Here, the State presented sufficient evidence tending to show the attacks on
Ms. Riley were not one continuous or non-stop assault, but rather three separate
assaults, separated by distinct interruptions. The State offered substantial evidence
in support of each assault, including photographs, documents, and testimony from
Ms. Riley, medical providers, and law enforcement officers.
Based upon the evidence presented by the State, Defendant’s attack on Ms.
Riley was interrupted by at least two distinct breaks in the assaults, which occurred
after she broke away from him twice. The evidence supports the jury’s conclusion
that three separate assaults occurred.
Defendant was properly sentenced separately and consecutively, within the
trial court’s discretion, for each of the three offenses. Prince, 271 N.C. App. at 324,
843 S.E.2d at 702. Defendant’s arguments are overruled.
VII. Conclusion
The trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss two of the three
assault charges. Defendant was properly sentenced within the presumptive ranges,
consecutively, for three separate assaults on Ms. Riley.
Defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial errors he brought forth
and argued. We discern no error in the jury’s verdicts or in the judgments entered
- 13 - STATE V. FRENCH
thereon. It is so ordered.
NO ERROR.
Chief Judge DILLON and Judge GORE concur.
- 14 -