State v. Dammons
159 N.C. App. 284, 2003 N.C. App. LEXIS 1539, 583 S.E.2d 606 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's claim of selective prosecution under the Equal Protection Clause requires proof of intentional or deliberate discrimination based on an unjustifiable standard, such as race or religion. A prosecutor's decision to press charges based on factors like the defendant's flight from jurisdiction, concealment, and habitual felon status is a valid exercise of discretion, not unconstitutional discrimination.
Facts:
- On June 22, 2000, Michael Dammons was released on a secured bond and signed a pretrial release order compelling his appearance at all future court dates.
- On July 5, 2000, Dammons was released on an unsecured bond for different charges and again signed an order requiring his appearance in court.
- Dammons' trial was set for January 22, 2001, but he informed his girlfriend he might not go and subsequently fled to Texas.
- In the spring of 2000, William Artis Smith lost his wallet containing his birth certificate and other identification.
- On June 14, 2001, police officer Marshall McNeill encountered Dammons, who presented a false identification card and social security card identifying himself as William Artis Smith.
- Later that day, Officer McNeill located Dammons hiding in an abandoned mobile home to elude police.
- Upon his arrest, police found a credit card, birth certificate, and pawn ticket bearing Smith's name in Dammons' possession, though Dammons continued to insist he was Smith.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Dammons was charged with financial identity fraud, failure to appear on a felony, and being an habitual felon.
- In a North Carolina state trial court, a jury found Dammons guilty of all charges.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdicts and sentenced Dammons to two consecutive terms of 95 to 123 months’ imprisonment.
- Dammons, as the appellant, appealed his convictions and sentence to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does prosecuting a defendant for failure to appear, when others in the same county are allegedly not prosecuted for the same offense, constitute selective prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Timmons-Goodson, J.
No. Prosecuting a defendant for failure to appear, even if others are not prosecuted for the same offense, does not constitute selective prosecution without evidence that the decision was based on an unjustifiable standard. To support a selective prosecution claim, a defendant must show more than unequal treatment; they must demonstrate that the prosecutor's decision involved intentional or deliberate discrimination based on a standard such as race, religion, or another arbitrary classification. Here, Dammons presented no evidence of such discrimination. The prosecutor provided several compelling, non-discriminatory reasons for the prosecution, including that Dammons fled the jurisdiction for a substantial time, actively concealed himself from authorities, faced a serious underlying felony charge, and was an habitual felon. These factors represent a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion, not a violation of equal protection.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high evidentiary burden a defendant must meet to succeed on a selective prosecution claim. It strongly upholds the principle of broad prosecutorial discretion, clarifying that prosecutors may permissibly consider factors related to the defendant's conduct and criminal history when deciding whether to bring charges. The ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to challenge charges based on unequal enforcement unless they can provide concrete evidence of intentional discrimination based on an arbitrary or constitutionally protected classification. It effectively insulates prosecutorial decisions that are grounded in legitimate law enforcement concerns, such as a defendant's flight risk or recidivism.
