STATE v. FINGER (2024)

Defendant Garcia Dontae Finger was convicted by a jury of three crimes, including felony assault by strangulation. The trial court entered a consolidated judgment on the three convictions and sentenced Defendant accordingly. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by concluding that the State offered sufficient evidence to prove he had committed the crime of felony assault by strangulation. For the reasoning below, we conclude that Defendant received a fair trial, free of reversible error.

The evidence in the light most favorable to the State tended to show as follows: Defendant's girlfriend testified that Defendant arrived drunk at her residence on 31 January 2020. He grabbed her and threw her down by her neck. He attempted to strangle her with both hands around her neck, then beat her, and then strangled her until she briefly fell unconscious. She testified that, in all, Defendant strangled her at least five times. A responding officer testified regarding the injuries of Defendant's girlfriend that he witnessed upon arrival. An examination of her neck revealed no visible swelling or bruising, but some mild soft tissue tenderness on either side of her neck was present.

At trial, Defendant did not testify or present evidence. However, he argued that there was “no real substantial evidence that she was, in fact, actually strangled by [him].” The court denied his motion to dismiss.

On appeal,¹ Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of assault by strangulation because there was insufficient evidence both that his girlfriend had physical injury to her neck and that it was caused directly by strangulation.

The standard of review for the denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence is de novo. State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62 (2007). “[T]he trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, drawing all reasonable inferences in the State's favor.” State v. Bradshaw, 366 N.C. 90, 92 (2012). “[It] must determine ‘whether there is substantial evidence [ ] of each essential element of the offense charged[.]’ ” Id. at 93. “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78 (1980).

We conclude that the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion to dismiss because there was substantial evidence to support a finding for each element of felony assault by strangulation. Furthermore, as to Defendant's argument, “[c]ontradictions and discrepancies [in the evidence] do not warrant dismissal of the case but are for the jury to resolve.” State v. Fritsh, 351 N.C. 373, 379 (2000). “The trial court is not required to determine that the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence prior to denying a defendant's motion to dismiss.” State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 101 (1980).

We conclude that Defendant received a fair trial, free of reversible error.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari on 28 May 2024. In our discretion, we grant Defendant's petition.

PER CURIAM.

Panel consisting of Chief Judge DILLON and Judges HAMPSON and CARPENTER.