Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; March 1, 1983; North Carolina; State Appellate Court
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina reviewed the case of State v. Walter Rushing, where the defendant challenged the sufficiency of evidence for his convictions of attempted rape and first-degree burglary. To uphold a conviction, each element of the offense must be supported by substantial evidence, defined as "more than a scintilla," sufficient to convince a rational jury of its existence. The court clarified that circumstantial evidence is permissible and that the State is entitled to reasonable inferences from the evidence presented.
For first-degree burglary, the prosecution must prove that the defendant broke and entered a dwelling at nighttime with the intent to commit a felony, specifically rape in this case. The intent must exist at the moment of entry; abandoning that intent later does not negate the charge. The court referenced previous cases, such as State v. Gay, where the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate intent to rape, and State v. Gammons, which similarly failed to prove the defendant's intention to overcome the victim's resistance. Both cases resulted in new trials for lesser charges, emphasizing the necessity for clear evidence of intent to support a conviction for attempted rape.
In State v. Bell, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld a first-degree burglary conviction based on sufficient evidence indicating the defendant's intent to commit rape, demonstrated by the intruder's threatening behavior towards the victim. In contrast, in State v. Dawkins, the Court vacated a similar conviction, concluding that the defendant's peculiar attire—wearing a gym shoe, a knee-high cast, shorts, and a raincoat—did not support an inference of intent to commit rape. The court remanded Dawkins for sentencing on the lesser charge of breaking and entering. In State v. Freeman, the Court reversed a burglary conviction, citing insufficient evidence of the defendant's intent to commit rape. The defendant's actions, including forcibly entering the victim's home and ambiguous statements, lacked the overt intent to engage in nonconsensual acts found in earlier cases. The Court emphasized that mere clothing or behavior did not suffice to imply a nonconsensual intent. Ultimately, the evidence regarding intent in Freeman was deemed ambiguous, leading to the vacating of the burglary conviction.
Defendant argues that the State's evidence was insufficient to uphold his conviction for attempted rape, which requires proof of intent to commit the crime and an overt act likely to result in the crime's commission. The court determined that the evidence only demonstrated an attempt to subdue the victim and evade detection, failing to establish either the intent to commit rape or an act likely to result in it. Consequently, the conviction for attempted rape was vacated. However, the evidence supported convictions for misdemeanor breaking and entering and assault on a female, as the defendant’s gender and age were uncontested. The case is remanded for sentencing on these convictions. Chief Judge Vaughn concurs in part but dissents regarding the attempted rape conviction, arguing that the jury could reasonably infer the defendant's intent to commit rape based on his actions and threats, suggesting that the decision involved improper weighing of evidence by the appellate court.
The cases of State v. Dawkins and State v. Freeman are distinguished from the current case. In Dawkins, the evidence indicated an intent to commit larceny, while in Freeman, there was no direct evidence of the defendant's intent to engage in sexual intercourse, either consensually or by force, as he entered without making threats or physical contact. In contrast, the current defendant entered through the victim's bedroom window while she was asleep. Although the evidence supports an intent to commit rape, the defendant fled due to the victim's screams and the presence of her infant, abandoning the attempt. The conviction for first-degree burglary is upheld, while the charge of attempted rape is dismissed, with a recommendation for sentencing for assault on a female. Additionally, there is a suggestion for the General Assembly to consider making forceful entry into occupied sleeping quarters a felony.
