State v. Ownbey
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA13-407 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 November 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Cherokee County No. 12 CRS 50718 TERRY DEWAYNE OWNBEY Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 January 2013 by Judge James U. Downs in Cherokee County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Deputy Director Attorney General Caroline Farmer, for the State. William B. Gibson for defendant-appellant. STEELMAN, Judge. Where the State presented substantial evidence of all of the elements of misdemeanor stalking, the trial court did not err in denying defendant s motion to dismiss. I. Factual and Procedural Background Terry DeWayne Ownbey (defendant) and Heidi (Lampman) had an on again/off again relationship. Lampman Lampman called the Murphy Police Department and informed them that, she -2didn t want [defendant] to have anything to do with her. result of this explained to conduct, [him] not officers to have spoke any more to As a defendant contact and with her [Lampman]. On the morning of 1 June 2012, Lampman again told defendant by text and by phone that she didn t want to see or speak with him[.] Lampman was alone at her residence she shared with her two sons. Defendant did not reside at Lampman s home. Lampman saw defendant drive by her house at least three times. She then saw defendant park his truck in front of her house. Lampman felt she was being harassed. Although Lampman was not in fear of death or bodily injury[,] she was getting emotional[.] Lampman called Assistant Chief of Police Dustin Smith (Smith), requesting the assistance of police to stop because her attempts to do so were not working. the harassment Lampman told Smith that [defendant] was back outside of her house. Smith described Lampman as upset during the telephone call. When Smith and Officer Samuel Allen arrived at Lampman s house, they found defendant inside his truck parked on the street blocking half [of Lampman s] driveway. Officer Allen asked defendant why he was at Lampman s house and defendant replied that he d come . . . to check on the tomatoes. The -3tomato plants were not visible from defendant s truck. Defendant told Smith that he was there looking at his tomatoes and watching [] Lampman. custody. placed The police then took defendant into Lampman came out of her house after the police had defendant in custody. Defendant was charged with misdemeanor stalking and second degree trespass. At trial, the court dismissed the second degree trespass charge at the close of the State s evidence. defendant guilty of misdemeanor stalking. The jury found The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 150 days in the Misdemeanant Confinement Program. Defendant appeals. II. Denial of Defendant s Motion to Dismiss In his only argument on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the stalking charge at the close of the State s evidence. We disagree. A. Standard of Review 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 -4v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (quoting State v. Barnes, 334 N.C. 67, 75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (1993)), 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 all its evidence determination, admitted, the whether trial competent court or must consider 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). B. Analysis N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.3A(c) provides that engages in misdemeanor stalking when he willfully on more than one occasion harasses another person without legal purpose or willfully engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person without legal purpose and the defendant knows or should know that the harassment or the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to do any of the following: . . . . (2) Suffer substantial emotional distress by a person -5placing that person in fear of death, bodily injury, or continued harassment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.3A(c). Defendant asserts that the State failed to prove that: (1) he acted without a legal purpose; (2) he harassed Lampman on more than one occasion; and (3) he knew that his conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress based upon a fear of continued harassment. 1. Legal Purpose Defendant contends that the evidence shows he was acting with a harmless legal purpose of merely checking on the tomato plants. However, the State presented evidence that the tomato plants were on Lampman s property, that defendant did not live there, and that the tomato plants could not be seen from the location where defendant had parked his truck. admitted to Accordingly, Smith we hold that he that the was Defendant also watching State [] presented Lampman. substantial evidence of defendant s lack of a legal purpose. 2. Harassment N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.3A defines harassment follows: Knowing conduct, including written or printed communication or transmission, telephone, cellular . . . directed at a as -6specific person that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies that person and that serves no legitimate purpose. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.3A(b)(2). The State presented evidence that tended to show that Lampman had informed defendant she did not want to have contact with him. On the morning of 1 June 2012, Lampman again told defendant via text and phone that she did not want to see him. Despite this clear message, defendant drove by her home at least three times and then parked his car in front of Lampman s home, partially blocking her driveway. felt harassed and emotional. Lampman testified that she As a result of defendant s course of conduct on 1 June 2012, Lampman found it necessary to call the Murphy Police Department for assistance. that during the phone call Lampman was upset Smith testified and said that defendant was harassing her outside her house. We hold that the State presented substantial evidence that defendant harassed Lampman. 3. Conduct Caused Reasonable Person to Suffer Substantial Emotional Distress A reasonable victim s person circumstances. is N.C. [a] Gen. reasonable Stat. § person in the 14-277.3A(b)(3). Substantial emotional distress is defined as [s]ignificant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, -7require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277(b)(4). Lampman had previously asked defendant to leave her alone. Despite this, defendant continued to approach her. Defendant repeatedly drove his car by Lampman s house and blocked half of her driveway with his car. Smith testified that when he spoke to Lampman she was upset and at her wits end. Lampman hid from defendant in the home and would only come out of the house once police arrived. As discussed above, this was not the first time that called Lampman the police concerning defendant s harassment. We hold that the State presented substantial evidence that a reasonable person would suffer substantial emotional distress by being placed in fear of continued harassment. NO ERROR. Judges CALABRIA and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
