State v. Walker
35 N.C. App. 182, 241 S.E.2d 89, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2920 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant cannot be convicted of child abduction if they act with the consent of the child's legal parent, or if they act under a good-faith, reasonable mistake of fact that negates criminal intent regarding the child's identity.
Facts:
- The defendant, with the father of Rush Walker III, took Rush Walker III from a school bus and placed him in an automobile, leaving the school.
- The defendant and Rush Walker III's father acted in concert during the taking of Rush Walker III.
- The defendant took Vickie Irby from the school, believing she was his granddaughter, Joy Walker.
- The father of Joy Walker (the defendant's son) had authorized the defendant to take Joy Walker.
- The defendant discerned Vickie Irby's true identity after driving approximately one-half mile from the school.
- Upon realizing the child was not his granddaughter, the defendant returned Vickie Irby to the school and let her out of the automobile.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged in trial court with abducting Rush Walker III (Case Number 76CR2134) and abducting Vickie Irby (Case Number 76CR2133).
- The defendant was convicted by the trial court for both abductions.
- The defendant made timely motions for judgment as of nonsuit in both cases, which the trial court denied.
- The defendant appealed his convictions to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (the appellant).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant properly convicted of child abduction if the evidence uncontradictedly shows the child's father consented to the taking, or if the defendant acted under a good-faith, reasonable mistake of fact regarding the child's identity that negates criminal intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Hedrick
No, a defendant is not properly convicted under these circumstances. For the abduction of Rush Walker III, the court referenced G.S. 14-41 and 14-42, which imply that a father, being a nearer blood relation, cannot be guilty of child abduction in the absence of a custody order favoring the mother, and that a father's consent is a defense. Since all the evidence indicated the defendant acted in concert with Rush Walker III's father, the only reasonable inference was that the defendant had the father's consent, thus negating the crime. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for nonsuit. For the abduction of Vickie Irby, the court recognized the principle that general criminal intent is an essential component of every malum in se criminal offense. The defendant presented evidence that he believed he was taking his granddaughter, Joy Walker, with the consent of her father. If the facts were as the defendant supposed, no crime would have been committed. This evidence raised an inference that the defendant was laboring under a mistake of fact regarding the child's identity, which could negate criminal intent. When such an inference is raised, the presumption of intent dissolves, and the trial judge must instruct the jury on the law of intent and mistake of fact. To negate criminal intent, the mistake must have been made in good faith and with due care. The trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on this substantial feature of the case constituted reversible error, entitling the defendant to a new trial.
Concurring - Morris
Judges Morris concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Arnold
Judges Arnold concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of North Carolina's child abduction statute, particularly emphasizing the significance of parental consent and the defense of mistake of fact. It establishes that a father's consent to the taking of his child negates an abduction charge, and that judicial instruction on the defense of mistake of fact is mandatory when evidence suggests a defendant acted under a good-faith and diligent belief that, if true, would render their actions lawful. This ruling provides crucial guidance for trial courts on jury instructions in criminal cases involving intent and factual misunderstandings, ensuring fair consideration of a defendant's state of mind.
