news-record.com

Can a white man commit a crime with "ethnic animosity" against another white man under state law?

Yes, the N.C. Court of Appeals said in a groundbreaking ruling last month.

In fact, it happened in Greensboro on July 1, 2008, when David John Brown fired his shotgun twice at Ray Peterson. But trouble had been building for a long time.

The court's opinion, written by Judge Linda McGee -- who did some small-town newspaper reporting in her younger days -- doesn't spare the gritty details.

Brown lived next door to Katherine Richards, who is black. The two "had a history of heated disputes," often about her dog or the property line between them.

Richards testified in Guilford County Superior Court that Brown "would throw things at my dog. He would hide behind the tree and hiss at me when I was feeding my dog. He would holler at me that I'd stolen his land and he was going to get me off of it; that I didn't know who his people were."

McGee continued the narrative: "Defendant's arguments with Richards took on a racial tone that escalated in intensity as time passed." This included abusive language and gestures aimed at Richards' daughter, and threats at Richards. She called the police on many occasions.

Meanwhile, Richards was dating Peterson. He was at her house that July 1 as Brown's alleged harassment of Richards and her daughter continued. Peterson went out to confront Brown, who spit at him and called him a "n----- lover," among other things. Peterson walked up Brown's driveway and challenged him to come off his porch to settle matters. Instead, Brown went into his house and came out with a shotgun, firing it twice. He missed, but not by much with one of the shots, Peterson testified.

Police were called and Brown was arrested. In November 2008, he was indicted on two charges: assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and assault with a deadly weapon with ethnic animosity.

Assault is a criminal offense under North Carolina law, of course, but it's an enhanced offense -- meaning a more severe penalty can be applied -- if the action is motivated by "race, color, religion, nationality or country of origin."

In other words, if it's a "hate crime."

There are fiercely divided views of hate-crime laws. Proponents say they're an appropriate response to the intimidation and downright terrorism that more powerful people have used to oppress minorities. Opponents counter that it's wrong to create different classes of victims; all crimes should be prosecuted with equal vigor.

That wasn't the issue in this case. The question was not whether the law is proper or improper but whether it could be used to convict Brown based on his actions.

In February 2009, a Guilford County jury -- after finding Brown not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill -- said yes. It decided he was guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with ethnic animosity. He was sentenced to six-to-eight months in jail.

Brown, represented by Greensboro attorney Mercedes Chut, appealed. They contended exactly what you'd expect: Because Brown and Peterson were of the same race, race couldn't be the motivating factor in the assault. The trial judge should have dismissed the charge.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, while conceding it was exploring new legal territory: "This is a question of first impression in North Carolina, and our review of other jurisdictions does not reveal guidance directly on point," McGee wrote.

She found some precedent in federal cases, but here the court settled on the idea that ethnic animosity did play a key role in Brown's actions toward Peterson because of Peterson's relationship with Richards.

The jury could "reasonably find that Defendant ... was acting out his disgust with, or anger towards, Peterson because of Peterson's relationship with a woman of a different race or color," McGee concluded.

Is that what the legislature intended when it enacted this law? Maybe not, but the court observed that the statute is written broadly enough to justify its ruling. Which means many more applications of the law are possible, sometimes cutting across expected racial lines.

The court record doesn't portray David John Brown as the kind of neighbor anyone would want. His "ethnic animosity" was evident.

Under state law, it was also criminal.

Contact Doug Clark at dgclark@news-record.com or 373-7039.