State v. Metcalf is a North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion that was filed in June of 2026. This case arose out of Wake County and involves a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) and felonious stalking. Finding that the trial was free of error, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the trial court.
Mr. Metcalf was married with two small children. He and his wife had been married since 2013. Their married could be characterized as one in which tension, chaos, and violence was common. On Christmas Day of 2019, the couple got into an argument which lead Mrs. Metcalf to leave the home. During the course of her attempt to leave, Mr. Metcalf pulled out a handgun and shot at Mrs. Metcalf’s head. Mr. Metcalf was arrested, criminally charged, and two days later Mrs. Metcalf sought and was granted a DVPO. After reconciling and breaking up during 2020, the couple began divorce proceedings in January of 2021. In May of 2021, Mr. Metcalf began sending his wife messages in which he threatened to kill her entire family. Mrs. Metcalf sought and was granted a DVPO in Jully of 2021 which was effective until July of 2022. This DVPO prohibited Mr. Metcalf from contacting his wife by any means including telephone.
Mr. Metcalf was arrested on unrelated charges in August of 2021 and held in the Wake County Detention Center. While incarcerated, Mr. Metcalf called his wife several times within less than a two hour period of time. Their four year old child answered one of those calls. The next day, he called his wife six more times and none of those calls were answered. Mrs. Metcalf reported the calls to law enforcement and Mr. Metcalf was subsequently charged with thirteen counts of misdemeanor DVPO violation and one count of felony stalking. The trial on these charges was held in October of 2024. During the trial, Mr. Metcalf made two motions to dismiss due to insufficient evidence. The motions were denied and the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all charges. Prior to sentencing, the prosecutor requested a brief recess. The trial court allowed a sixteen minute recess and during that recess, the trial court met with the jury in the jury room. At sentencing, Mr. Metcalf received the maximum amount of time that the law would allow. Mr. Metcalf gave notice of appeal.
The issues that Mr. Metcalf raised on appeal were the denial of his motion to dismiss the stalking charge and that his rights were violated when he was not present while the trial court met with the jurors prior to sentencing. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court is required to view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the State and allowing the State all favorable inferences from the evidence. Under the felony stalking statute, a defendant is required to have engaged in the offending conduct on more than one occasion. The offense of felony stalking when a DVPO is in effect is a Class H felony. The offense is set forth in N.C.G.S. §14-277.3A(c),(d). The elements of the offense are the defendant (1) acted willfully; (2) harassed another person or engaged in a course of conduct; (3) without legal purpose on more than one occasion; (4) knew or should have known that the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or suffer substantial emotional distress by placing that person in fear of, death, bodily injury, or continued harassment; and (5) there was an active court order in effect prohibiting the behavior. Mr. Metcalf argued that the State did not provide substantial evidence that his behavior qualified as a course of conduct and that the State did not prove that he engaged in conduct on more than one occasion because only one of his calls was answered.
At trial, the State presented the DVPO issued in July of 2021. Staff of the Wake County Detention Center testified regarding the thirteen telephone calls. Mrs. Metcalf testified that she experienced an “incredible amount of dread and fear” upon receiving the telephone calls. The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by Mr. Metcalf’s position that because his calls went unanswered, there was no communication. Instead, the Court found that communication did not require vocal words. The repeated calls were sufficient to establish communication. Mr. Metcalf’s repeatedly utilizing the telephone met the statutory requirement of a “course of conduct.”
With regard to Mr. Metcalf’s argument that his rights were violated when the trial court met with the jurors prior to sentencing without him being present, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not act in violation of Mr. Metcalf’s rights. The jury had already been discharged and their duties were complete. Mr. Metcalf’s presence was not required at this stage of the proceedings. In addition, Mr. Metcalf’s attorney did not object to this meeting. The Court of Appeals did not find it necessary to invoke Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure to review this issue in order to “prevent manifest injustice.”
Recent Comments