State v. David Raeford Tripp ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
    2022-NCCOA-795
    No. COA21-688
    Filed 6 December 2022
    Brunswick County, No. 18 CRS 681
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
    v.
    DAVID RAEFORD TRIPP, JR.
    Appeal by Defendant from order entered 28 June 2021 by Judge Jason C.
    Disbrow in Brunswick County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14
    September 2022.
    Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Nicholas R.
    Sanders, for the State.
    Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Amanda S.
    Zimmer, for Defendant-Appellant.
    WOOD, Judge.
    ¶1         Under the principles of double jeopardy and due process, may Defendant be
    prosecuted for murder twenty-one years after his conviction for felony child abuse
    now that the child has succumbed to his injuries? We hold that he may.
    I.     Background
    ¶2         On 12 April 1997, David, a fifteen-month-old child, was taken to the Columbia
    Brunswick Hospital by ambulance. The emergency room doctor “observed that the
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    child was not breathing, that he had a head fracture, abnormal pupil response, facial
    bruising, deformity on an arm and a leg, and a burned area in the diaper region, and
    that the child was having seizures.” State v. Noffsinger, 
    137 N.C. App. 418
    , 419, 
    528 S.E.2d 605
    , 607 (2000). A pediatrician who treated David’s injuries determined that
    he suffered from Battered Child Syndrome based on her “physical findings . . . and
    not finding a sufficient explanation for any of the injuries as had been described.”
    According to the pediatrician, David would “never” be able to live independently and
    that “the entire part of his brain that involves learning, thinking, maturing, [and]
    developing normally ha[d] been destroyed.”         David barely survived and was left
    unable to function on his own without assistance.
    ¶3         In 1998, David Raeford Tripp, Jr. (“Defendant”) entered an Alford plea to four
    counts of felony child abuse. Defendant was the boyfriend of the abused child’s
    mother, Robin Noffsinger, who was also indicted for felony child abuse charges as a
    result of the child’s injuries. David suffered severe fractures to his skull, spine, limbs,
    and ribs; second- and third-degree burns to his buttocks and genitals; missing hair;
    and multiple bruises, cuts, and puncture wounds over his body, among others. The
    burns resulted in permanent nerve damage, and at the time of the plea, David was
    living in a long-term care home for children.
    ¶4         As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to dismiss an indictment for
    malicious maiming, a Class C felony. The parties also agreed that the
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    State will not use Defendant’s guilty plea in either a
    direct or impeaching manner in any subsequent
    prosecution of Defendant arising out of the acts and
    transactions that form the basis of the charges to which the
    Defendant is pleading guilty except the State may use
    Defendant’s conviction herein as allowed by Rule 609.
    Defendant reserves the right to raise a defense of
    former or double jeopardy in any subsequent prosecution of
    Defendant based on the acts or transactions forming the
    basis of the charges to which Defendant is pleading guilty.
    The State reserves the right to proceed against
    the Defendant at any later date for any and all criminal
    charges for which the law allows.
    ¶5         The trial court sentenced Defendant to active sentences for three counts of
    felony child abuse and a suspended sentence on the fourth count. He completed his
    sentences in 2008. David lived a disabled life for almost twenty-one years before
    allegedly succumbing to his injuries and dying in 2018. The State now seeks to
    prosecute Defendant for murder.
    ¶6         Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder on 21 May 2018. Because the
    indictment related to Defendant’s previous offenses, he moved to dismiss the murder
    charge, alleging prosecution for first-degree murder would violate his right to be free
    from double jeopardy and his right to due process. The trial court denied his motion
    to dismiss on 28 June 2021. Defendant appealed this denial by petition for writ of
    certiorari. On 26 August 2021, this Court granted Defendant’s petition for writ of
    certiorari for the limited purpose of reviewing the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    Motion to Dismiss.
    II.      Jurisdiction
    ¶7         Because the denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss preceded final judgment
    on the merits, this appeal is interlocutory. Waters v. Qualified Pers., Inc., 
    294 N.C. 200
    , 207, 
    240 S.E.2d 338
    , 343 (1978). We may properly hear interlocutory appeals
    upon writ of certiorari.   N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(g) (2021).      “Rule 21 of our
    appellate rules provides that a ‘writ of certiorari may be issued in appropriate
    circumstances by either appellate court to permit review of the judgments and orders
    of trial tribunals when . . . no right of appeal from an interlocutory order exists.’ ”
    Rauch v. Urgent Care Pharmacy, Inc., 
    178 N.C. App. 510
    , 515, 
    632 S.E.2d 211
    , 216
    (2006) (quoting N.C. R. App. P. 21(a)(1)). As this Court has previously stated, “the
    consequences of rejecting Defendant’s double jeopardy argument are surely serious.”
    State v. Smith, 
    267 N.C. App. 364
    , 367, 
    832 S.E.2d 921
    , 925 (2019). Defendant filed
    a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on 29 July 2021. We allowed the petition on 26
    August 2021.
    III.    Standard of Review
    ¶8         We review “the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo.” State v.
    Smith, 
    186 N.C. App. 57
    , 62, 
    650 S.E.2d 29
    , 33 (2007).          Likewise, we review
    “conclusions of law pertaining to a constitutional matter de novo.” State v. Bowditch,
    
    364 N.C. 335
    , 340, 
    700 S.E.2d 1
    , 5 (2010).
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    IV.    Double Jeopardy
    ¶9            “No person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy
    of life or limb . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. V.
    ¶ 10          This right against double jeopardy provides several protections. “It protects
    against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against
    a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against
    multiple punishments for the same offense.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 
    395 U.S. 711
    ,
    717, 
    89 S. Ct. 2072
    , 2076, 
    23 L. Ed. 2d 656
    , 664-65 (1969). We address the second of
    these protections as it is undisputed that Defendant’s prior felony child abuse
    convictions and the current first-degree murder indictment arise out of the same
    incident that occurred in 1997.
    ¶ 11          Determining if a second prosecution is for the same offense, the U.S. Supreme
    Court relies on the Same-Elements Test of Blockburger v. United States, 
    284 U.S. 299
    , 
    52 S. Ct. 180
    , 
    76 L. Ed. 306
     (1932). United States v. Dixon, 
    509 U.S. 688
    , 696,
    
    113 S. Ct. 2849
    , 2856, 
    125 L. Ed. 2d 556
    , 568 (1993). Two offenses for the same
    conduct are considered the same offense under this test unless “each offense contains
    an element not contained in the other.” 
    Id.
     Hence, lesser-included and greater
    offenses are treated as the same. Brown v. Ohio, 
    432 U.S. 161
    , 169, 
    97 S. Ct. 2221
    ,
    2227, 
    53 L. Ed. 2d 187
    , 196 (1977). For example, a contempt prosecution for the
    disruption of judicial business and a subsequent prosecution for the criminal assault
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    that was part of the disruption fail the Same-Elements Test “because the contempt
    offense did not require the element of criminal conduct, and the criminal offense did
    not require the element of disrupting judicial business.” Dixon, 
    509 U.S. at 697
    , 
    113 S. Ct. at 2856
    , 
    125 L. Ed. 2d at 568
    . Thus, both offenses may be prosecuted without
    violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.
    ¶ 12         Our State’s felony murder rule allows for the conviction of first-degree murder
    when a victim is killed “in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson,
    rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or
    attempted with the use of a deadly weapon.” State v. Watson, 
    277 N.C. App. 314
    ,
    2021-NCCOA-186, ¶ 23 (quoting 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-17
    ). At the time of Defendant’s
    original sentencing in 1997, a non-parent committed felony child abuse when the
    “person providing care to or supervision of a child less than 16 years of age . . .
    intentionally inflicts any serious physical injury upon or to the child or . . .
    intentionally commits an assault upon the child which results in any serious physical
    injury.” 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-318.4
    (a) (1997). The State concedes and we agree that,
    under the Same-Elements Test, Defendant’s conviction of felony child abuse appears
    on its face to be a lesser-included offense of felony murder and should be treated as
    the same offense unless an exception applies. We now consider the exceptions.
    ¶ 13         One exception to the general prohibition of placing individuals in double
    jeopardy would have this Court uphold the prosecution of a greater- or lesser-included
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    offense if our legislature specifically intends to treat the offense at issue as a separate
    offense from others. The U.S. Supreme Court illustrated this exception in Missouri
    v. Hunter, 
    459 U.S. 359
    , 366, 
    103 S. Ct. 673
    , 678, 
    74 L. Ed. 2d 535
    , 542 (1983) when
    it upheld the prosecution of both robbery and armed criminal action. Though one
    crime contained the same elements as that of the other such that prosecution for both
    generally ought to have been prohibited, the Court found no error with the
    prosecution because the legislature provided that “[t]he punishment imposed
    pursuant to this subsection shall be in addition to any punishment provided by law
    for the crime committed by, with, or through the use, assistance, or aid of a dangerous
    or deadly weapon.” Hunter, 
    459 U.S. at 362
    , 
    103 S. Ct. at 676
    , 
    74 L. Ed. 2d at 539
    .
    Similarly, this Court has held “[w]hen a defendant is tried under two different
    statutes for the same conduct, ‘the amount of punishment allowable under the double
    jeopardy clause . . . is determined by the intent of the legislature.’ ”          State v.
    Barksdale, 
    237 N.C. App. 464
    , 473, 768, S.E.2d 126, 132 (2014) (quoting State v.
    Freeland, 
    316 N.C. 13
    , 21, 
    340 S.E.2d 35
    , 39 (1986)).
    ¶ 14          This legislative intent exception has only ever been utilized with concurrent
    sentencing and not subsequent prosecutions as is the case here.              Though our
    legislature identifies felony child abuse and murder as separate crimes “even when
    both offenses arise out of the same conduct,” State v. Elliott, 
    344 N.C. 242
    , 278, 
    475 S.E.2d 202
    , 218 (1996), we refrain, in this case, from considering whether the
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    legislature’s authorization to prosecute a single occurrence as two distinct crimes
    applies to a subsequent prosecution scenario when a more established exception
    exists.
    ¶ 15             The more established exception which applies in this case is found in Diaz v.
    United States. 
    223 U.S. 442
    , 449, 
    32 S. Ct. 250
    , 251, 
    56 L. Ed. 500
    , 503 (1912). Under
    the Diaz Exception, a defendant subsequently may be prosecuted for a separate
    offense if a requisite element for that offense was not an element of the offense
    charged during the defendant’s prior prosecution. 
    Id.
     For example, as in Diaz, a
    defendant convicted of assault and battery may subsequently be tried for murder if
    the victim later dies from his injuries. 
    Id.
    ¶ 16             Here, the State could not have prosecuted Defendant for murder in 1998
    because the abused child, David, had not yet died. To be convicted of murder, one
    must be proven guilty of “(1) the unlawful killing, (2) of another human being, (3)
    with malice.” State v. Coble, 
    351 N.C. 448
    , 449, 
    527 S.E.2d 45
    , 46 (2000) (citing 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-17
    ). It was not until David died in 2018, allegedly from his injuries,
    that the missing element necessary to pursue a murder indictment manifested. This
    scenario triggers the Diaz Exception. Where the perpetrator in Diaz was prosecuted
    for assault and battery before the victim’s death and for murder after the victim’s
    death, Defendant here was prosecuted for felonious child abuse before the victim’s
    death and is now being prosecuted for murder after the victim’s death.
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    ¶ 17         Notwithstanding Defendant’s exposure to prosecution under the federal
    scheme, Defendant asks us to consider whether our State affords greater protection
    from double jeopardy than the U.S. Constitution as applied to the facts of this case.
    Generally, States are free to grant greater protections to its citizens than afforded
    under the U.S. Constitution. State v. Jackson, 
    348 N.C. 644
    , 648, 
    503 S.E.2d 101
    , 103
    (1998). Accordingly, Defendant urges this Court to adopt the added protection of the
    Same Conduct Test used in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Grady v. Corbin. Under
    this test, the Double Jeopardy Clause stands as a bar against “a subsequent
    prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that
    prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which
    the defendant has already been prosecuted.” Grady v. Corbin, 
    495 U.S. 508
    , 510, 
    110 S. Ct. 2084
    , 2087, 
    109 L. Ed. 2d 548
    , 557 (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court later
    overturned this test in United States v. Dixon. 
    509 U.S. 688
    , 704, 
    113 S. Ct. 2849
    ,
    2860, 
    125 L. Ed. 2d 556
    , 573 (1993). In Dixon, the Court ruled that the test “is wholly
    inconsistent with earlier Supreme Court precedent and with the clear common-law
    understanding of double jeopardy.” 
    Id.
     Citing the Court’s reasoning in Dixon, the
    North Carolina Supreme Court refused to adopt it. State v. Gay, 
    334 N.C. 467
    , 490,
    
    434 S.E.2d 840
    , 853 (1993). Bound by these precedents, we must not adopt the Same
    Conduct Test here. See Cannon v. Miller, 
    313 N.C. 324
    , 324, 
    327 S.E.2d 888
    , 888
    (1985) (stating this Court lacks authority to overrule decisions of our Supreme Court).
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    ¶ 18          Defendant also urges this Court not to apply the Diaz Exception to our State’s
    tradition of prohibiting double jeopardy. Here, too, the North Carolina Supreme
    Court has spoken. State v. Meadows fully recognizes the Diaz Exception as applied
    to our State’s application of the principles barring double jeopardy. 
    272 N.C. 327
    ,
    331, 
    158 S.E.2d 638
    , 641 (1968).      In Meadows, the defendant pleaded guilty to
    felonious assault before the victim died. 
    Id. at 331
    , 
    158 S.E.2d at 640
    . After the
    victim died, the State sought to prosecute the defendant for murder.           
    Id.
       Our
    Supreme Court cited Diaz in allowing the prosecution. 
    Id. at 331
    , 
    158 S.E.2d at 641
    .
    ¶ 19          Defendant points out that Meadows was decided before our State disposed of
    the common-law year-and-a-day rule. See State v. Vance, 
    328 N.C. 613
    , 616-19, 
    403 S.E.2d 495
    , 498-99 (1991) (outlining the history of the year-and-a-day rule before
    abrogating it). Further, our legislature has not enacted a statute of limitations for
    the prosecution of felonies. State v. Johnson, 
    275 N.C. 264
    , 271, 
    167 S.E.2d 274
    , 279
    (1969). Yet, these conditions do not affect this analysis of double jeopardy protections.
    Our legislature authorizes the prosecution of felonies years after their commission,
    and our constitutional safeguards permit it. See State v. Barnett, 
    223 N.C. App. 450
    ,
    459, 
    734 S.E.2d 130
    , 137 (2012) (exampling a felony conviction over twenty-five years
    after the offense).
    V.    Substantive Due Process
    ¶ 20          In the absence of double jeopardy protection, the year-and-a-day rule, or an
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    applicable statute of limitation, Defendant calls upon the aid of substantive due
    process to contend that it is a violation of his constitutional rights to prosecute him
    for first-degree murder twenty-one years after being convicted of felony child abuse
    for the same act. We are unpersuaded.
    ¶ 21         Substantive due process developed to “prevent[] the government from engaging
    in conduct that shocks the conscience or interferes with rights implicit in the concept
    of ordered liberty.” State v. Womble, 
    277 N.C. App. 164
    , 2021-NCCOA-150, ¶ 79
    (quoting State v. 
    Thompson, 349
     N.C. 483, 491, 
    508 S.E.2d 277
    , 282 (1998)). This
    doctrine arose from the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and has been
    interpreted to exist within our State’s constitutional variant—the Law of the Land
    Clause. Id. at ¶¶ 79, 82.
    ¶ 22         The U.S. Supreme Court has “decline[d] . . . to hold that the Due Process Clause
    provides greater double-jeopardy protection than does the Double Jeopardy Clause.”
    Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 
    537 U.S. 101
    , 116, 
    123 S. Ct. 732
    , 742, 
    154 L. Ed. 2d 588
    ,
    602 (2003). Since we hold that the subsequent prosecution of Defendant is permitted
    under the U.S. Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause, we likewise hold that it does
    not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We now turn our
    attention to our State’s Law of the Land Clause.
    ¶ 23         Article I, Section 19, of our State’s Constitution reads,
    No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or
    in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but
    by the law of the land. No person shall be denied the equal
    protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to
    discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion,
    or national origin.
    “The term ‘law of the land’ as used in Article I, Section 19, of the Constitution of North
    Carolina, is synonymous with ‘due process of law’ as used in the Fourteenth
    Amendment to the Federal Constitution.” In re Moore, 
    289 N.C. 95
    , 98, 
    221 S.E.2d 307
    , 309 (1976). We note, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of
    the Due Process Clause is “not controlling[] authority for interpretation of the Law of
    the Land Clause.” Singleton v. N.C. HHS, ___ N.C. App. ___, 2022-NCCOA-412, ¶ 29
    (quoting Evans v. Cowan, 
    132 N.C. App. 1
    , 6, 
    510 S.E.2d 170
    , 174 (1999)). For
    instance, “[o]ur Supreme Court has read our Law of the Land Clause to provide
    greater protection than the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    Womble, 277 N.C. at ¶ 82. It protects “against arbitrary legislation, demanding that
    the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that the law be
    substantially related to the valid object sought to be obtained.” State v. Joyner, 
    286 N.C. 366
    , 371, 
    211 S.E.2d 320
    , 323 (1975).
    ¶ 24         Defendant does not cite to a specific law that offends the doctrine of substantive
    due process but asserts generally that Defendant’s “right to due process would be
    violated if he is forced to pay his debt to society twice.” To clarify, the State does not
    STATE V. TRIPP
    2022-NCCOA-795
    Opinion of the Court
    seek to prosecute Defendant once more for the crime of felony child abuse. Today, it
    seeks his prosecution for the crime of first-degree murder. Perhaps Defendant’s
    “debt” for felony child abuse has been paid, but we look to whether a potential “debt”
    for murder is due. We therefore conclude the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s
    Motion to Dismiss does not violate Defendant’s fundamental rights as protected
    under the doctrine of substantive due process.
    VI.     Conclusion
    ¶ 25         The Diaz Exception permits the subsequent prosecution of a greater-included
    offense if a fact necessary for that offense was not present during Defendant’s prior
    prosecution. We hold that the Diaz Exception applies to the facts of this case and
    that substantive due process allows for the prosecution of Defendant for first-degree
    murder. The trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss is affirmed.
    AFFIRMED.
    Judges HAMPSON and GRIFFIN concur.