State v. Sinclair
North Carolina Court of Appeals
663 S.E.2d 866 (2008)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Jimmie Sinclair (defendant) had several interactions with local police officers. During the interactions, the officers searched Sinclair. One evening, officers received a tip that there was drug activity at a bowling alley. A group of marked and unmarked police vehicles arrived at the bowling alley. One officer, who had been involved in the previous interactions with Sinclair, yelled that he wanted to talk to Sinclair. Sinclair asked, in a nonagitated, normal tone, whether the officer wanted to search him again, to which the officer said yes. Then, Sinclair took off running. Several officers chased him through an empty lot with tall grass. After several officers apprehended Sinclair, one officer claimed to have found a bag of cocaine in the path through which Sinclair ran. The state charged Sinclair with several crimes, including resisting a public officer. Sinclair moved for dismissal of this charge, which the district court denied. A jury convicted Sinclair, and he appealed. Sinclair argued that the resisting-a-public-officer charge should have been dismissed because the contact with the officers was consensual and he therefore did not engage in unlawful conduct by running away, as required for the resisting-a-public-officer charge.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stephens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.