Opinion
No. COA12–991.
2013-06-4
STATE of North Carolina v. William Ray WILLIAMS, Defendant.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by June S. Ferrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State. Geoffrey W. Hosford, for defendant-appellant.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 25 August 2011 by Judge Phyllis M. Gorham in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 March 2013. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by June S. Ferrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State. Geoffrey W. Hosford, for defendant-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
Defendant William Ray Williams appeals his conviction of obtaining property by false pretense. We find no error.
The State presented evidence at trial tending to show defendant was the administrator of the New Hanover County ABC Board for twenty years. In April 2006, defendant awarded Lee Cowper, the owner of a local construction company, a bid to construct an ABC store in Porters Neck, North Carolina. In June 2006, during the construction of the Porters Neck ABC store, defendant and Cowper also made an oral agreement for Cowper to build a garage at defendant's home. Defendant informed Cowper he wanted the garage project to be completed for $100,000. Cowper's employee, Junior Moore, worked with defendant to draw up plans for the garage according to defendant's specifications. Cowper expressed concern the project could not be done for $100,000 and warned defendant costs would rise if changes were made and “extras” were added during the construction. During construction defendant made numerous changes to the original plans. Cowper informed defendant the changes had caused the overall price to rise and the final cost of the garage project came to approximately $141,000.
On 14 September 2006, defendant paid Cowper $60,000 for partial completion of the garage. Construction on the garage was completed in October 2006. Defendant then paid Cowper $40,000 in December 2006, making defendant's total personal payments $100,000. Between 14 September 2006 and 14 December 2006, Cowper spoke to defendant about the remaining balance of $40,000. When confronted about the difference defendant refused to pay it. Cowper testified that on previous occasions defendant had similarly refused to pay and instructed Cowper to make the difference “go away.”
In 2001, defendant hired Cowper's company to build an ABC store at Wrightsville Beach. In 2002, defendant asked Cowper to renovate the kitchen in the defendant's home. The original cost of the remodel was estimated at $31,539.37. However, defendant requested and authorized various additions and changes during the remodel and the final cost came to $51,793.61. Defendant refused to pay the final amount telling Cowper to “make the cost go away.” Cowper interpreted defendant's response to mean he should “include it in some kind of unauthorized billing for work that [he] would be doing on an ABC project.” Cowper did not include the cost in an unauthorized billing. Instead, Cowper accepted defendant's payment of $19,000 and absorbed the loss.
Similarly, in 2006, after Cowper completed work on another ABC store, defendant asked Cowper to add a sunroom to the back of defendant's house. The total cost of the sunroom came to approximately $61,000. Defendant paid Cowper $43,500 and again told Cowper to “make the difference go away.”
Cowper testified that although defendant did not specifically tell Cowper to bill the difference on the 2006 garage project to the New Hanover ABC Board, “the gist of what [defendant] said was that if I was to get paid, I needed to bill it through the ABC system in some form.” On 14 December 2006, Cowper submitted a change order to defendant in the amount of $143,494.00. The order form included ten line items for work performed by Cowper at the Porters Neck ABC store, one of which, Line Item 9, was a false expense. The false line item read: “Extra extension of concrete driveway, 172 yards, times $255 per yard” totaling $43,860.00. Cowper has never owned a concrete business. When Cowper submitted the false line item, the concrete work at the Porters Neck store had already been completed by a subcontractor, Cape Fear Paving. Defendant approved payment to Cape Fear Paving for the concrete work at Porters Neck in October 2006. Three months later Cowper submitted the falsified change order.
Cowper testified he created the false line item to recoup the $40,000 balance from the garage project. Cowper did not specifically inform defendant about the false line item when he submitted the order. Defendant signed the falsified order and authorized payment on behalf of the New Hanover County ABC Board. On 19 December 2006, Cowper received a check from the ABC Board for the full amount of the change order, including the $43,860 attributed to the false expenses in Line Item 9. Cowper considered the payment of the false expense as payment for defendant's remaining $40,000 debt on the garage project.
The State also offered evidence tending to show that, as administrator, defendant oversaw construction and remodeling of all the ABC stores in New Hanover County and was the sole person responsible for approving all invoices for payment that came to the ABC Board office. Defendant's assistant testified that defendant was actively involved in overseeing the construction of the ABC Stores, often visiting the construction sites daily, and that he had detailed knowledge of the costs.
Defendant presented no evidence. The jury found defendant guilty of obtaining property by false pretense. The trial court entered judgment and imposed a suspended sentence of five to six months and defendant was placed on supervised probation for 24 months.
_________________________
Defendant's sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the charges for insufficient evidence. “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 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007), appeal after new trial,197 N.C.App. 403, 677 S.E.2d 14 (2009).
“Upon defendant's motion for dismissal, the question for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein and (2) of defendant's being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is properly denied.” State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455,cert. denied, 531 U.S. 890, 148 L.Ed.2d 150 (2000). “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, 78–79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980). “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 contradictions in its favor.” State v. Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 223 (1994), cert. denied,515 U.S. 1135, 132 L.Ed.2d 818 (1995). “Circumstantial evidence may withstand a motion to dismiss and support a conviction even when the evidence does not rule out every hypothesis of innocence.” Fritsch, 351 N.C. at 379, 526 S.E.2d at 455 (internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘If the trial court determines that a reasonable inference of the defendant's guilt may be drawn from the evidence, it must deny the defendant's motion and send the case to the jury even though the evidence may support reasonable inferences of the defendant's innocence.” ’ State v. Grigsby, 351 N.C. 454, 456–57, 526 S.E.2d 460, 462 (2000) (quoting State v. Alexander, 337 N.C. 229, 242, 262 S.E.2d 277, 286 (1980)).
The elements of obtaining property by false pretenses are: “(1) a false representation of a subsisting fact or future fulfillment or event, (2) which is calculated and intended to deceive, (3) which does in fact deceive, and (4) by which one person obtains or attempts to obtain value from another.” State v. Cronin, 299 N .C. 229, 242, 262 S.E.2d 277, 286 (1980).
Defendant first contends the State failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant calculated and intended to deceive the New Hanover ABC Board. Defendant argues he did not knowingly calculate and intend to deceive the ABC Board because he was unaware the line-item charge for $43,860 of concrete work was false.
An essential element of the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses is “that the act be done knowingly and designedly ... with intent to cheat or defraud.” State v. Hines, 54 N.C.App. 529, 532–33, 284 S.E.2d 164, 167 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted); see alsoN.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–100 (2011). “A person's intent is seldom provable by direct evidence, and must usually be shown through circumstantial evidence.” State v. Walston, 140 N.C.App. 327, 332, 536 S.E.2d 630, 633 (2000) (quoting State v. Compton, 90 N.C.App. 101, 104, 367 S.E.2d 353, 355 (1988)). “In determining the presence or absence of the element of intent, the jury may consider the acts and conduct of the defendant and the general circumstances existing at the time of the alleged commission of the offense charged....” Id. (quoting Hines, 54 N.C.App. at 533, 284 S.E.2d at 167).
In this case, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, evidence that: (1) defendant told Cowper to make the difference between the amount owed Cowper and the amount defendant paid him on various personal construction projects completed on defendant's behalf “go away”; (2) Cowper interpreted such language to mean “that if I was to get paid, I needed to bill it through the ABC system in some form”; (3) defendant was the only person responsible for reviewing invoices which were submitted to the New Hanover ABC Board office for payment; (4) defendant was “very detailed” in how he did his job as administrator; (5) defendant was aware that Cape Fear Paving did the concrete work at the Porters Neck store; (6) defendant authorized payment to Cape Fear Paving for the completed concrete work done at the Porters Neck store before Cowper submitted the change order form with the false line item; (7) the work listed on the false line item was for a large amount of concrete work done at the Porters Neck store; (8) Cowper has had a long business relationship with defendant and during that time Cowper has never owned a concrete business; and (9) the total dollar amount of the false line item was approximately the same amount defendant still owed Cowper on the garage project, is sufficient for a reasonable mind to accept as adequate to support a conclusion defendant knowingly calculated and intended to deceive the New Hanover ABC Board when he signed the form including the false expense for the laying of concrete. Therefore, we hold the State provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable mind to conclude defendant knowingly calculated and intended to deceive the New Hanover ABC Board by authorizing that Cowper be paid for the false expense with Board funds.
Defendant next argues the State failed to produce substantial evidence that defendant obtained property from the New Hanover County ABC Board through false representation. Defendant contends that since he authorized the falsified invoice only after he had received the benefit of the completed garage, defendant did not receive anything of value as a result of the payment of the false line item. This argument is without merit.
“There must be a causal relationship between the representation alleged to have been made and the obtaining of the money or property .” State v. Davis, 48 N.C.App. 526, 531, 269 S.E.2d 291, 294–95,disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 301 N.C. 237, 283 S.E.2d 134 (1980). The relevant analysis is not whether defendant had possession of the garage or received any benefit before he authorized the form containing the false expenses. Rather, the relevant analysis is whether defendant “obtain[ed] or attempt[ed] to obtain value from another.” Id. at 531,269 S.E.2d at 294 (quoting Cronin, 299 N.C. at 242, 262 S.E.2d at 286). Thus, the proper analysis is whether defendant obtained value from the New Hanover ABC Board through a false representation.
Here, when considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, it can be reasonably concluded that defendant obtained value from the New Hanover ABC Board. Evidence that defendant owed Cowper approximately $40,000; defendant signed the falsified change order; and Cowper considered the payment of the false line item as satisfying the debt owed on the garage project, is sufficient for “a reasonable mind” to conclude defendant directly obtained value, in the form of the payment of a personal debt, from the New Hanover ABC Board. We hold sufficient evidence was presented for a reasonable mind to conclude a causal relationship existed between defendant signing the falsified charge form and defendant's obtaining of value—payment for a personal debt—from the New Hanover ABC Board.
The trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of obtaining property by false pretense for insufficient evidence.
No Error. Judges HUNTER and STEPHENS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).