Opinion
No. COA10-1013
Filed 15 March 2011 This case not for publication
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 25 February 2010 by Judge Ronald L. Stephens in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 March 2011.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Amanda P. Little, for the State. James W. Carter for defendant-appellant.
Durham County No. 09 CRS 42170.
Defendant Imran Shafiq-Khan appeals from a judgment sentencing him to an active term of thirty days imprisonment in the custody of the Sheriff of Durham County based on a jury verdict finding him guilty of sexual battery. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the sexual battery charge because the evidence did not support the jury's determination that he had sexual contact with the alleged victim by force and against her will. After careful consideration of Defendant's challenges to the trial court's judgment in light of the record and the applicable law, we find no basis for providing Defendant with any relief from the trial court's judgment.
I. Factual Background A. Substantive Facts 1. State's Evidence
In February 2009, Defendant and the victim worked in the Emergency Department at Duke University Hospital. Defendant worked with the Interim On Premises Agency as a sitter for suicidal patients, while the victim served as a nursing assistant. Although the victim had seen Defendant at the hospital five or ten times and had spoken to him "in passing," she did not have any relationship with him outside of the work environment.
On the night of 8 February 2009, the victim was working a 12-hour shift in the Emergency Department. Around 11:00 p.m., the victim was walking down a hallway toward the cafeteria when she saw Defendant walking towards her. As Defendant approached the victim, he said that he needed to tell her "something he had heard" and stated that he had heard from one of the victim's friends that the victim had "a baby daddy and a child" and was dating someone in the Emergency Department. According to a time-stamped surveillance video, the victim and Defendant conversed in the hallway at 11:26 p.m.
At the conclusion of their conversation, Defendant and the victim began walking in the same direction down the hall, with the victim inquiring of Defendant as to who was talking about her. As the two of them turned a corner, they entered the hospital's radiology department, which was not covered by a surveillance camera. At that point, Defendant told the victim that he needed to show her something and opened the door to a storage room. While standing behind the victim, Defendant pushed her into the storage room, closed the door, and pinned her against the door.
After pushing the victim into the storage room, Defendant began feeling the victim's buttocks and legs and said "I can f — k you better than anyone in the" Emergency Department. Although the victim told Defendant "no" and asked him to "stop," Defendant kissed her even though the victim was moving her head to the side. Next, Defendant took the victim's hand and placed it over his clothed penis, leading the victim to "jerk[] away" her hand. As Defendant attempted to untie the bottom part of the victim's scrubs and put his hand down her pants, the victim slid down the door in a squatting position for the purpose of preventing Defendant from touching her underneath her clothing. At that point, Defendant "gave up," and the victim left the storage room. Defendant exited the room after the victim and headed in a direction opposite from the one which she had taken. The entire incident lasted approximately five to ten minutes.
Subsequently, the victim went to locate her supervisor, Tammy Rogers, to report what had happened. When the victim approached her at around midnight, some fifteen minutes after the incident involving Defendant, Ms. Rogers observed that the victim was upset and escorted the victim to her office for the purpose of talking with the victim privately. At that time, the victim told Ms. Rogers that she and Defendant were talking in the hallway while she headed to the cafeteria; that Defendant said that he wanted to tell her something; that, when they arrived in the radiology area, Defendant shoved the victim into a room, pinned her against the door, and began kissing and feeling all over her; that Defendant put her hand on his penis; and that Defendant had tried to lower her pants. When asked if she was physically injured, the victim responded in the negative. In response to a request from Ms. Rogers, the victim provided a written statement for submission to supervisory personnel at Duke Hospital.
Frank DeMarco, Director of Nursing for the Emergency Department, arrived at the Emergency Department between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. after having been contacted by Ms. Rogers. Mr. DeMarco testified that "it was quite obvious that [the victim] was very distraught" when he saw her in Ms. Rogers' office. Mr. DeMarco described the victim as "very withdrawn," "teary-eyed" and "shaking." After speaking with Mr. DeMarco, the victim was sent home.
First Sergeant R. W. Isley of the Duke University Police Department interviewed the victim on 11 February 2009. At that time, the victim told Officer Isley that she was headed to the cafeteria when she encountered Defendant, who said he had to tell her something; that she began to converse with him; that Defendant said that he had to show her something; that they walked toward the hallway in the radiology department; that, while standing in front of a door in the hallway, Defendant opened the door and pushed her into a closet; that Defendant kissed her; that Defendant placed her hand on his penis, causing her to jerk away; that Defendant attempted to untie her scrub pants; and that she lowered herself to the floor and took a ball-like position to prevent Defendant from placing his hands inside her pants.
Officer Isley interviewed Defendant on 23 February 2009. Two days later, Defendant provided Officer Isley with a written statement, in which he said that:
[B]efore leaving the [Emergency Department] I convinced [the victim] to walk with me out of the [Emergency Department] so that we could be exclusive. We went into the Radiology room and began to-kissing and touching. I felt her hand on my chest leading to my stomach and then directed her hand to go further down into my scrubs. I then realized that she had no intention on going that far and she pulled her hand out and left the room. We then parted after this two-minute mutual gathering.
2. Defendant's Evidence
Defendant testified that he and the victim conversed as they walked down the hall; that they held hands; and that, when the two of them reached the radiology department, he opened the door to the storage room and the victim followed him inside. In addition, Defendant testified that, once inside the storage room, he and the victim started kissing and groping each other; that the victim stroked his penis; and that, after two or three minutes, the victim said that she had to go and left. Defendant denied that the victim ever told him "no" or to "stop" during the incident and described it as purely consensual.
B. Procedural History
On 27 February 2009, a warrant for arrest was issued charging Defendant with sexual battery and misdemeanor false imprisonment.
The charges against Defendant came on for trial before Judge James T. Hill in Durham County District Court on 19 August 2009. At that time, Judge Hill found Defendant guilty of both sexual battery and misdemeanor false imprisonment and entered a judgment imposing an intermediate punishment. At the conclusion of the District Court proceedings, Defendant noted an appeal to the Superior Court for a trial de novo.
The charges against Defendant came on for trial at the 22 February 2010 criminal session of Durham County Superior Court before the trial court and a jury. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, Defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the charges of sexual battery and misdemeanor false imprisonment on the grounds that the evidence did not suffice to support a verdict convicting Defendant of either offense. After electing to testify in his own defense, Defendant renewed his dismissal motion, which the trial court once again denied. Following the presentation of the evidence, the arguments of counsel, and the trial court's instructions, the jury returned verdicts finding Defendant guilty of sexual battery and not guilty of false imprisonment.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that Defendant had accumulated no prior record points and should be sentenced as a Level I offender. Based on this determination, the trial court sentenced Defendant to thirty days imprisonment in the custody of the Sheriff of Durham County and ordered him to register as a sex offender. Defendant noted an appeal to this Court from the trial court's judgment.
II. Legal Analysis
In his sole challenge to the trial court's judgment, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motions to dismiss based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence. More particularly, Defendant contends that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support a finding that he engaged in sexual contact with the victim by force and against her will. We disagree.
The standard for ruling on a motion to dismiss "is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged and (2) that defendant is the perpetrator of the offense." State v. Lynch, 327 N.C. 210, 215, 393 S.E.2d 811, 814 (1990) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. State v. Patterson, 335 N.C. 437, 449-50, 439 S.E.2d 578, 585 (1994) (citation omitted). In examining the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, with the State being entitled to all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Davis, 130 N.C. App. 675, 679, 505 S.E.2d 138, 141 (1998) (citation omitted). "Any contradictions or discrepancies arising from the evidence are properly left for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal." State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 36, 468 S.E.2d 232, 237 (1996) (citation omitted). We will now review Defendant's challenge to the trial court's judgment utilizing this standard of review.
The misdemeanor offense of sexual battery is statutorily defined as follows:
(a) A person is guilty of sexual battery if the person, for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, engages in sexual contact with another person:
(1) By force and against the will of the other person[.]
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.5A. Although Defendant does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that "there was sexual contact through touching," he does, however, contend that the State failed to present sufficient evidence tending to show that this touching involved the use of force or was contrary to the victim's will.
At trial, the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, tended to show that Defendant pushed the victim into the storage room from behind; that he pinned her against the storage room door; that the victim turned her head when Defendant kissed her; that the victim told Defendant "no" and to "stop; that the victim "jerked away" when Defendant placed her hand on his penis; and that the victim squatted on the floor and took the shape of a ball when Defendant tried to put his hand inside her pants. In addition, the victim testified that, following the attack, she sought out her supervisor to report the incident, cried while telling her supervisor what had happened, and was sent home after completing a written statement and speaking to Mr. DeMarco. Ms. Rogers and Mr. DeMarco confirmed that the victim was upset after her encounter with Defendant. When taken in the light most favorable to the State, this evidence adequately supports the jury's determination that the sexual touching that admittedly occurred was forcible and occurred against the victim's will.
Although Defendant urges us to reach a contrary conclusion, a careful analysis of Defendant's arguments, which focus on the fact that the victim did not sustain physical injuries, that the victim did not run screaming to the Emergency Department, and that the victim did not report the assault immediately after it happened, indicates that Defendant's challenge to the trial court's ruling is really an attack upon the credibility of the State's evidence rather than its sufficiency. Such an argument is more properly directed to the finder of fact than an appellate court charged with reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a defendant's conviction. As a result, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Defendant's dismissal motion and that Defendant has not demonstrated that any error occurred during the proceedings that resulted in the entry of the trial court's judgment.
NO ERROR.
Judges CALABRIA and BEASLEY concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).