State v. Meader

377 N.C. 157

856 S.E.2d 533

STATE of North Carolina

v.Faye Larkin MEADER

No. 49A20

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed April 16, 2021

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Matthew Baptiste Holloway, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellee.

Bonnie Keith Green, for defendant-appellant.

BERGER, Justice.

¶ 1 On December 19, 2018, a Guilford County jury found defendant Faye Larkin Meader guilty of felony breaking or entering a motor vehicle, misdemeanor larceny, and misdemeanor possession of stolen property.¹ Defendant received a split sentence, and she was placed on supervised probation. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court did not err when it declined to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication. Defendant appeals.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 At approximately 2:00 p.m. on November 22, 2017, defendant arrived at a mental health counseling center in Greensboro, North Carolina. Law enforcement was contacted, and dispatch was informed that defendant was behaving as if she was intoxicated.

¶ 3 Earlier that afternoon, a family arrived for an appointment at the same counseling center. When the family returned to their vehicle after the appointment, they noticed that the driver's side door was open, and items were missing from their vehicle. Among the missing items were an ammunition clip, a pair of sunglasses, and a drink koozie. In addition, a soda can, which did not belong to any of the family members, had been placed in a cupholder. The husband called law enforcement to report the incident. The wife returned to the counseling center, where she observed defendant drinking soda out of a cup. The wife recognized defendant because they had attended school together.

¶ 4 The husband returned to the counseling center and informed an employee that someone had broken into his vehicle. He asked if anyone had "seen anything weird." Defendant, who was still in the lobby of the counseling center at the time, "stood up and came over to where [the family was] and started talking" to them. Defendant informed the husband that she knew who broke into the car and provided him with a name. When the husband informed defendant that law enforcement had been contacted, defendant got "irate" and said, "no cops."

¶ 5 When the husband walked past defendant to exit the counseling center, he "smelled alcohol somewhere." Two other witnesses stated that defendant "appeared to be" or "seemed" intoxicated.

¶ 6 Caterina Sanchez, a therapist at the counseling center, testified that defendant "was disruptive in terms of not wanting to leave and not really listening to us [ b]ut she ... wasn't misbehaving or anything like that." Ms. Sanchez testified that because of defendant's behavior, Ms. Sanchez decided to call law enforcement and Chris Faulkner, the owner of the counseling center.

¶ 7 Mr. Faulkner testified that, although defendant was "agitated," she "was answering the [law enforcement officers’] questions ... [and was being] fairly cooperative." Mr. Faulkner advised defendant that she was banned from the property; when asked if she understood, defendant replied, "yes, sir."

¶ 8 When officers arrived at the counseling center, they asked defendant why she was there. Defendant told them her father passed away the previous month and that she had been the victim of a domestic violence incident the day before. Defendant removed her pants to show officers a bruise on her thigh.

¶ 9 As officers escorted defendant from the center, she became agitated and stated that she needed to collect her shoes, bra, and purse. When defendant failed to leave the premises as instructed, defendant was handcuffed and escorted out. Defendant navigated a flight of stairs without assistance while her arms were handcuffed behind her back.

¶ 10 A search of the premises failed to reveal missing property, and officers were prepared to release defendant when they noticed a shiny object in defendant's jacket pocket. Defendant told officers that the object was a cellphone, but she pulled the missing ammunition clip from her pocket. Defendant was then arrested for felony breaking or entering a motor vehicle, misdemeanor larceny, and misdemeanor possession of stolen property. Once at the police station, the stolen drink koozie was located in defendant's jacket pocket and the stolen sunglasses were found on the floorboard of the patrol car.

¶ 11 On September 24, 2018, defendant was indicted on one count of felony breaking or entering a motor vehicle, one count of misdemeanor larceny, and one count of misdemeanor possession of stolen property. On December 7, 2018, defendant gave notice of her intent to offer the defense of voluntary intoxication. On December 17, 2018, defendant's case came on for trial. The trial court denied defendant's request for a voluntary intoxication jury instruction. On December 19, 2018, the jury found defendant guilty on all charges. Defendant entered notice of appeal.

¶ 12 In denying defendant's request for the instruction on voluntary intoxication, the trial court stated:

That will be denied[.] ... [T]he [c]ourt has listened to all of the testimony intently. I also reviewed State's Exhibit Number 1, which was admitted without objection. And—and there are three videos on State's 1. The first video clearly shows the Defendant, and I understand that the witnesses in the light most favorable to the Defendant have testified that the Defendant was intoxicated. However, during the course of the video, I could hear the Defendant's words. She was not slurring her words. She was speaking in easily understandable English. There were many questions that were asked of her to which she was responsive. It was clear that she was responsive and was aware of what was going on around her.

For instance, they asked her how she got there, and she said, well, they brought me. It was an appropriate response to the question. She later identified, or attempted to identify the name of the people that brought her, but in any event, there are many other indications that she was responsive and aware of what was going on.

For instance, on the video you clearly hear Mr. Faulkner, the owner of the business at issue, "You are not allowed to come here any longer. You understand?" And her response was, "Yes, sir." At one point one law enforcement officer, I believe it was a law enforcement officer, asked her for her name, and she clearly indicated it was Faye Larkin Meader. It was easily understandable. It was an appropriate response, a direct response to the question asked.

Although she was escorted out of the business at issue by law enforcement officers, she was able to walk under her own power. In other words, the officers didn't have to carry her, did not have to put her in some type of wheelchair, simply directed her to leave, and that's what she did.

At one point, when she was sitting in the patrol car, she was directed or requested by the officer to put your feet back in there for me, and the Defendant immediately complied, indicating she understood, was responsive and aware of what was going on. At one point, when she was attempting to articulate what happened, and how she got to the predicament she was in, she was complaining of another person selling marijuana and oxycontin. Oxycontin is not a—it's not a tongue-twister, but for someone that was so completely intoxicated and without the ability to form intent, it would—it would seem to me to be very hard to articulate such a word very clearly and easily, as she did, as I witnessed in the video. At one point, she indicated she wanted her coat because it was cold outside. Again, the point is she was aware of what was going on, that it was cold, and that when you're cold, you need a jacket. That's exactly what she indicated.

At one point, she was asked on the video what happened to the laptop computer, or words to that effect, and the Defendant immediately said she had no idea what the officer was talking about, which was, in fact, an accurate statement based on the facts of this case. Again, the Defendant was responsive and aware of what was going on around her, and answered that question immediately, appropriately, and, as it turns out, accurately.

She was also—the Defendant was also aware of what was going on around her because she knew she was interacting with law enforcement officers. At one point she said, "God bless you all. You all have a hard job." In any event, there is ample evidence to show that, again, she was responsive and aware of what was going on around her.

....

No one in this case testified that the Defendant was, in fact, drunk. Although the testimony was that she was impaired or intoxicated on some type of substance. The substance has been unidentified.

¶ 13 In an opinion filed January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err when it declined to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication because defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence of voluntary intoxication. State v. Meader , 269 N.C. App. 446, 450, 838 S.E.2d 643, 646 (2020). The dissenting judge argued that substantial evidence was presented to support a voluntary intoxication instruction and the failure to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication constituted prejudicial error which requires a new trial. Id. at 451–56, 838 S.E.2d at 646–50 (Brook, J., dissenting).

¶ 14 Defendant argues that substantial evidence was presented to require a voluntary intoxication instruction. We disagree.

II. Standard of Review

¶ 15 To determine whether a defendant is entitled to a requested instruction on voluntary intoxication, this Court reviews de novo whether each element of the defense is supported by substantial evidence when taken in the light most favorable to the defendant. State v. Mash , 323 N.C. 339, 348, 372 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1988). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." State v. Franklin , 327 N.C. 162, 171, 393 S.E.2d 781,...