State v. Watlington: Court Clarifies Unit of Prosecution for Hit and Run – North Carolina Criminal Law

Earlier final month, the Court docket of Appeals determined State v. Watlington, COA23-1106, ___ N.C. App. ___ (2025). Amongst different points, in its choice the Court docket addressed an open query: what’s the unit of prosecution for successful and run? Might the defendant be charged as soon as for leaving the scene of a crash that causes harm, or as an alternative could a separate cost be issued for every particular person injured? (Shea Denning wrote about that situation and the framework for evaluation in 2014, noting then that the query had not been straight addressed by our appellate courts). We now have a solution: the unit of prosecution is leaving the scene of a crash, not the variety of individuals injured. Learn on for additional particulars.

Background. Models of prosecution will be defined because the variety of counts or costs that come from a single course of conduct. For instance, the unit of prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is the continual act of possession, not every firearm possessed. So, an individual who throughout one time and at one location, possessed a number of firearms whereas being a convicted felon could solely be convicted of 1 rely of possession of firearm by a convicted felon. State v. Wiggins, 210 N.C. App. 128 (2011). In distinction, the unit of prosecution for possession of kid pornography is every picture possessed. See State v. Howell, 169 N.C. App. 58 (2005) (defendant was correctly convicted of forty-three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor for possession of photographs on a single onerous drive). For extra on models of prosecution, see this bulletin written by my colleague Brittany Bromell.

Who decides. In 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court docket dominated that the unit of prosecution for a felony course of conduct is inside the discretion of the legislature. Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (1955). Citing Bell, the N.C. Supreme Court docket held “[W]hen the legislature doesn’t clearly specific legislative intent, the courtroom should decide the allowable unit of prosecution. In doing so, any ambiguity ought to be resolved in favor of lenity.” State v. Smith, 323 N.C. 439, 441 (1988). Generally, as within the case with G.S. 20-166, the legislature doesn’t explicitly outline the unit of prosecution for every felony offense, and the courts should interact in statutory development to achieve a solution. In inspecting the statutory language, resolving ambiguity in favor of lenity means “the presumption is towards a number of punishments within the absence of a opposite legislative intent.” State v. Garris, 191 N.C. App. 276 (2008).

State v. Watlington. Meranda Watlington was indicted for one rely of first-degree homicide, 5 counts of tried first-degree homicide, 4 counts of assault with a lethal weapon with intent to kill inflicting severe harm, six counts of felonious hit and run leading to severe bodily harm or loss of life, one rely of driving whereas license revoked, and on rely of failure to scale back velocity. The proof at trial confirmed that on the morning of October 12, 2019, Watlington was within the passenger seat of a Ford Explorer pushed by her co-defendant, Fana Felton, with two different people within the again seat. Felton drove to a fuel station in Greensboro, the place Shanna Goode was parked at one of many fuel pumps. Felton hit the aspect of Goode’s automobile as she handed the fuel pumps. An argument ensued exterior the vehicles (beside Goode’s automobile and behind the Explorer). The argument escalated, attracting others from the fuel station, and shortly there have been about ten individuals within the fast space. The argument turned bodily and a number of fights broke out, reportedly lasting for greater than twenty-five minutes.

With the combating ongoing, Watlington received into the motive force’s seat of the Explorer and reversed into the group behind her. After taking roughly ten seconds to run over the people behind the Explorer, Watlington stopped a couple of toes away and shifted the automobile into drive. She then drove ahead towards the identical group, operating into and over the group once more. As emergency automobiles started to reach on the scene, Felton received into the passenger seat, and Watlington drove out of the parking zone. One particular person was pronounced lifeless on the scene, 4 individuals had been hospitalized with severe accidents, and one particular person sustained minor accidents. At trial, Watlington was convicted of 1 rely of first-degree homicide underneath the felony homicide rule, 4 counts of assault with a lethal weapon inflicting severe harm, one rely of assault with a lethal weapon, 4 counts of felonious hit and run leading to severe bodily harm, and one rely of misdemeanor hit and run (Felton was convicted of accent after the very fact to all eleven of Watlington’s convictions). Watlington appealed, arguing partly that the trial courtroom erred by allowing her to be convicted of a number of counts of hit and run primarily based on the quantity the individuals injured, relatively than her conduct of leaving the scene of a crash.

Evaluation. The Court docket started by inspecting G.S. 20-166 to see if it clearly established a unit of prosecution noting that subsection (a) refers to a crash that leads to severely bodily harm or loss of life to “any particular person,” and subsection (a1) refers to a crash that leads to “harm.” The Court docket relied on earlier examinations of comparable language to search out that these phrases had been ambiguous and didn’t clearly set up a unit of prosecution. See State v. Smith, 323 N.C. 439 (1988) (concluding {that a} statute making it illegal to disseminate “any obscene writing, image, report…” was ambiguous), State v. Conley, 374 N.C. 209 (2020) (concluding {that a} statute making it illegal to own “any gun, rifle, pistol, or different firearm” on academic property was ambiguous). Because of this, the Court docket utilized the rule of lenity and held that the unit of prosecution underneath G.S. 20-166 is the conduct of leaving the scene of a crash, and never the variety of individuals injured.

Utility. Watlington was convicted of 4 counts of felonious hit and run leading to severe bodily harm or loss of life and one rely of misdemeanor hit and run corresponding with every particular person injured or killed. The Court docket discovered that these accidents occurred over the course of two crashes: first, when Watlington reversed into and over the group, and second, when Watlington drove ahead over the identical group. By figuring out that the unit of prosecution is leaving the scene of a crash, the Court docket discovered that Watlington may very well be convicted of solely two violations of G.S. 20-166 relatively than 5: as soon as for leaving the scene of the primary crash, and once more for leaving the scene of the second crash. Though she solely “left” as soon as, that course of conduct contained two models of prosecution (leaving the scene of a crash). Because of this, the Court docket arrested judgment on three of Watlington’s hit and run convictions and remanded for resentencing.

Wanting ahead. What’s a crash? G.S. 20-4.01(4c) defines crash as “[a]ny occasion that leads to harm or property injury attributable on to the movement of a motorized vehicle or its load. The phrases collision, accident, and crash and their cognates are synonymous.” Simply final yr, the Court docket of Appeals interpreted “crash” to incorporate each unintentional and intentional acts primarily based on the definition together with “any occasion.” State v. Buck, 293 N.C. App. 671 (2024). Whereas the opinion in Watlington doesn’t give an in depth rationalization as to the way it decided there have been two crashes, context clues from the recitation of the details present some steering. The Court docket famous that after Watlington reversed over the group, she got here “to an entire cease,” throughout which a number of the individuals injured had been capable of start transferring and making an attempt to face. “[E]ight seconds after” the primary crash, Watlington put the Explorer in drive and bumped into the group once more. On this case, the occasions had been separated by each a measurable time span and a change in path.

Whereas the Court docket discovered these elements enough to determine two crashes, it didn’t deal with how a lot—or how little—is required for there to be separate crashes. The evaluation courts have utilized within the assault context for figuring out whether or not there may be one persevering with assault or a number of assaults could present steering—there should be a “distinct interruption.” State v. Dew, 379 N.C. 64 (2021) (“distinct interruption” allowing multiple assault cost contains however is just not restricted to: a lapse in time, intervening occasion, interruption in momentum of assault, change in location, or another clear break delineating the top of 1 assault and the start of one other). Beneath that framework, it could take even lower than eight seconds and altering instructions for there to be separate crashes. Within the context of auto crashes, distinct interruptions might embody elements like lapses in time, whether or not the automobile stops and begins once more, adjustments in path, or adjustments in driver enter to the pedals or steering wheel.