IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-430
Filed 1 July 2026
Alamance County, Nos. 20 CR 052197-000, 20 CR 052198-000, 20 CR 052200-000, 20 CR 052212-000, 20 CR 052213-000.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
ALI ASGHARI SANDI, Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered by Judge D. Thomas Lambeth in
Alamance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 January 2026.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Robert C.
Montgomery, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender James R.
Grant, for the Defendant–Appellant.
MURRY, Judge.
Ali A. Sandi (Defendant) appeals from jury verdicts convicting him of
attempted first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, assault by strangulation,
assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury
(AWDWIKISI), assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury with a minor
present, and misdemeanor child abuse. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court
erred (1) by denying his motion for a mistrial in response to the conduct of the
prosecuting witness’s court-appointed interpreter; (2) by denying his motion to
STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
dismiss the charge of first-degree kidnapping for insufficient evidence; and (3) by
denying his motion to dismiss the charge of misdemeanor child abuse for insufficient
evidence. For the following reasons, we disagree and hold the trial court did not err
in any respect.
I. Background
This matter arises out of a physical altercation between Defendant and his
then-wife, Haniyeh Khodaverdian. Defendant and Haniyeh married in Iran,
immigrated to the United States in 2012, and settled in Alamance County. Both
Defendant and Haniyeh are Iranian nationals and speak Farsi as their native
language. They have two children: a son and a daughter (respectively, “Son” and
“Daughter”).1
The evidence at trial tended to show the following: On 13 May 2020, Defendant
told Haniyeh he wanted a divorce and demanded she go “to the attorney and tell him
that [she] d[id] not want anything.” Haniyeh agreed to the divorce but asked to
remain in the home until the children grew up or until she could find employment.
Defendant then hit her in the face. The next morning, Defendant demanded that
Haniyeh give him Daughter’s passport. When she refused, Defendant hit her, pulled
her hair, and punched her in the chest.
Later that day, Haniyeh and Daughter were sleeping in the marital bedroom
1 Daughter was around six years old at this time.
-2-STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
until Defendant and Son entered the room arguing. After Haniyeh asked Defendant
to be quiet, Defendant pushed her onto the bed and began strangling her, awakening
Daughter. At some point, Son struck Defendant on the back with an object, causing
Defendant to release Haniyeh. Defendant and Son continued arguing as they both
left the room.
Shortly thereafter, Haniyeh heard Son yell that Defendant had a knife.
Haniyeh and Daughter tried to prevent Defendant from entering the bedroom by
holding the door shut, but Defendant forced it open by punching and kicking it. Once
Defendant made his way inside, Haniyeh told Daughter to go to the bed. Armed with
a knife, Defendant trapped Haniyeh between the door and a dresser and repeatedly
stabbed her while saying, “I kill you.” Son attempted to intervene by grabbing
Defendant and trying to take the knife while urging Haniyeh to flee. Haniyeh escaped
to a neighbor’s home and called 911. Police and paramedics arrived at the scene.
Following a prolonged and violent struggle with Defendant, responding officers
subdued and arrested him. At the hospital, a forensic nurse examiner documented
and photographed Haniyeh’s injuries, which included multiple bruises on her back,
arms, legs, shoulders, head, and face.
On 26 May 2020, a grand jury indicted Defendant on twenty-one felonies
arising from his conduct towards Haniyeh and law-enforcement officers in the
-3-STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
children’s presence.2 Defendant declined the trial court’s offer of an interpreter. The
trial court appointed Mousa Sadredduni (the interpreter) to translate for Haniyeh.
At the 19 February 2024 trial, the State presented evidence of Haniyeh’s multiple
stab wounds, bruising, and injuries consistent with strangulation, including petechial
hemorrhaging and neck trauma. Haniyeh testified to Defendant’s conduct and the
events leading up to her injuries.
Throughout the trial, defense counsel objected to several aspects of the
interpreter’s conduct and translations. The trial court eventually interrogated the
interpreter voir dire regarding his qualifications under and familiarity with the
Administrative Office of the Courts’s (AOC) published ethical and procedural
standards for foreign-language interpreters in North Carolina’s state courts
(Standards). See generally John W. Smith, Standards for Language Access Services
(2017) [hereinafter Standards], https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/inline-files/02_2_NC
_Standards_for_Language_Access_0.pdf?NhuszCAEVfS8KkdLetH97b9I4NRBcd.f
(last visited June 23, 2026).
Defendant then moved for a mistrial, arguing the interpreter’s translations
and associated “behaviors” created a legal defect in the proceedings and violated his
2 While not pertinent to this appeal, Defendant’s additional charges included assault with a deadly
weapon on a government official, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, two counts of
assault inflicting serious injury upon a law enforcement officer, and assault on a law enforcement
animal.
-4-STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
right to a fair trial. Specifically, Defendant claimed the translator erred by: (1)
mimicking Haniyeh’s stabbing hand motions when translating testimony about the
stabbing; (2) choosing “the English [words] that he believed best fit from his own
experience that may not be what [Haniyeh] intended” “as opposed to asking the Court
for its guidance” “when faced with multiple options or a word that ha[s] multiple
meanings in Farsi”; (3) mistranslating the word knife as gun before “immediately”
correcting himself; and (4) repeating the word go twice when Haniyeh said it once.
Defendant argued the interpreter “ma[de] himself a witness” by “choosing words and
making motions” that “emphasiz[ed] the English translation” in an effort “to
influence th[e] jury.”
The trial court denied the motion, finding “th[o]se explanations of words like
eventually versus a short passage of time . . . innocuous” enough to “not be error
beyond a reasonable doubt,” thus not “ris[ing] to the level . . . [of] a mistrial.” (Italics
added.) It did express “concern” about certain “hand gestures” that it “did not see but
. . . acknowledged to have happened while [Haniyeh] was on the stand” and made
sure that the interpreter “underst[ood] that [wa]s not to happen again.” The trial
court said as much after Haniyeh “gave a demonstration of . . . how she recalls the
stabbing happening” without any additional “hand gestures made by the interpreter.”
It concluded that Haniyeh’s subsequent actions demonstrating the stabbing for the
jury “cured any issue that could have . . . substantial[ly] and irreparabl[y]
prejudice[d]” Defendant. The trial court then notified the parties “that if . . . other
-5-STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
circumstances . . . come up” where Haniyeh might say a word in Farsi “that might
le[a]d to two different English words,” it would “stop and try to . . . get the exact
meaning of what she is saying without any confusion.” The trial court concluded by
offering Defendant a limiting instruction for the jury regarding the interpreter’s
mimicking of Haniyeh’s hand motions, which he declined in a strategic effort to avoid
calling “more attention” to the conduct.
At the close of the State’s evidence, Defendant moved to dismiss the charges of
first-degree kidnapping and misdemeanor child abuse for insufficient evidence; the
trial court denied both motions. Defendant did not testify or otherwise present
evidence in his own defense. The jury returned verdicts in relevant part convicting
Defendant of attempted first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, assault by
strangulation, AWDWIKISI, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury
with a minor present, and misdemeanor child abuse. The trial court consolidated the
guilty verdicts into six consecutive aggravated judgments and sentenced Defendant
to 323–432 months of imprisonment. Defendant timely appealed.
II. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s final
judgment under N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-27, 15A-1444. See N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(b) (2025) (final
judgment of a trial court); id. § 15A-1444(a) (pleaded not guilty but found guilty).
III. Analysis
Defendant argues the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for a mistrial
-6-STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
after the interpreter “repeatedly violated AOC’s code of ethics for interpreters in a
manner that reasonably called into question his training and impartiality”;3 (2)
denying his motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree kidnapping for lacking any
“evidence of confinement, restraint, or removal separate from any which was inherent
in the assaults and attempted murder”; and (3) denying his motion to dismiss the
charge of misdemeanor child abuse for lacking any “evidence that [Daughter] was at
a ‘substantial risk of physical injury’ during the assaults.” For the following reasons,
we disagree and hold that the trial court did not err.
A. Motion for a Mistrial
First, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a
mistrial because the interpreter’s “disregard for AOC’s code of ethics” constituted “an
error or legal defect” that “result[ed] in substantial and irreparable prejudice to [his]
case.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1061. He alleges the interpreter’s translations and “behaviors
3 Defendant appears to challenge the trial court’s denial of his mistrial motion, but his contentions
are based on unclear grounds. Defendant ostensibly argues that the trial court should have
declared a mistrial after the interpreter “repeatedly violated AOC’s code of ethics.” But his brief
presents a “scattershot” series of arguments under a single assignment of error—many of which
are unpreserved and none of which permit meaningful appellate review. See, e.g. Clark v. Dyer,
236 N.C. App. 9, 15 (2014). He first claims that “the trial court [did not] consider[ ] whether an
interpreter was necessary at all.” He then claims that the interpreter “repeatedly violated AOC’s
promulgated ethics standards,” “expressed ignorance as to those standards,” “g[a]ve[ ] the
appearance of bias” with his “previous involvement in the case,” and “responded with personal
offense and an offer to recuse when defense counsel questioned his interpretation’s adherence to
AOC standards.” Because Defendant largely did not raise these arguments as “specific grounds”
in support of his motion for a mistrial, he failed to preserve them as grounds for our review here.
See N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1). We thus dismiss all but one of Defendant’s interpreter-related
arguments for failure to clearly define the issues presented under Appellate Rule 28. See id. 28.
-7-STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
associated [there]with” violated his right to a fair trial by: (1) mimicking Haniyeh’s
stabbing hand motion when translating testimony about the stabbing; (2) choosing
“the English [words] that he believed best fit from his own experience that may not
be what [Haniyeh] intended” “as opposed to asking the Court for its guidance” “when
faced with multiple options or a word that ha[s] multiple meanings in Farsi”; (3)
mistranslating the word knife as gun before “immediately” correcting himself; and (4)
repeating the word go twice when Haniyeh said it once. Considering the record in
light of this limited basis for review, we hold that the trial court did not “abuse its
discretion” in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial. State v. Call, 349 N.C. 382,
406 (1998).
1. Standard of Review
As noted above, Defendant moved for a mistrial in response to the interpreter’s
conduct. A mistrial is a “drastic remedy, warranted only for such serious
improprieties as would make it impossible to attain a fair and impartial verdict.”
State v. Stocks, 319 N.C. 437, 441 (1987). Generally, we review the trial court’s denial
of a mistrial for abuse of discretion and may reverse it “only upon a showing that its
ruling was manifestly unsupported by reason.” State v. Miles, 221 N.C. App. 211, 216
(2012). But when a defendant raises a question of law—such as whether the trial
court properly interpreted and applied statutory language—we conduct de novo
review. See Da Silva v. WakeMed, 375 N.C. 1, 5 (2020) (reviewing alleged error of law
de novo); accord Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996) (“A trial court by
-8-STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” (citation modified)).
Defendant attempts to invoke our de novo review by arguing that the trial
court misapplied the law by declining to declare a mistrial where the interpreter’s
“ignorance of and repeated disregard” for the Standards was “constitutionally
intolerable” and “violated [his] right to due process.” Essentially, Defendant us to
review these Standards as a question of law entitling him to certain constitutional
protections, but Defendant does not cite—nor can we find—any statute or case law
incorporating these Standards into binding law. Having reviewed these Standards
within our State’s constitutional framework, we hold that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial.
2. Interpreter Standards
The North Carolina Constitution vests the General Assembly with the
authority to “enact laws, within constitutional limits, to protect or promote the
health, morals, order, safety, and general welfare of society.” State v. Ballance, 229
N.C. 764, 769 (1949). The General Assembly may delegate limited legislative
authority to an agency in another Branch if it has “declared the policy to be
effectuated and has established the broad framework of law within which it is to be
accomplished and standards for [its] guidance,” Foster v. N.C. Med. Care Comm’n,
283 N.C. 110, 119 (1973)—in particular, “an administrative office of the courts,” N.C.
Const. art IV, § 15.
In 1965, the General Assembly created the AOC as an administrative agency
-9-STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
within the Judicial Branch. See Judicial Department Act of 1965, ch. 310, § 1, 1965
N.C. Sess. Laws 369, 418. It also established the position of AOC Director as the
“Administrative Officer of the Courts” who must fulfill certain statutorily defined
duties, id., which it later expanded to “[p]rescrib[ing] policies and procedures for the
appointment and payment of foreign language interpreters . . . [to] be applied
uniformly throughout the General Court of Justice,” Act of Aug. 3, 2006, S.L.
2006-187, § 5(b), 2006 N.C. Sess. Laws 681, 685.
Under that authority, AOC adopted the Standards after a 2012 United States
Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation found widespread language-access
deficiencies across North Carolina’s state-court systems in violation of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act. Press Release No. 22-1148, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. Pub. Affs. (Oct.
25, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-resolves-langu
age-access-investigation-north-carolina-courts (last visited June 23, 2026). The
Standards formalize “best practices” that our state courts must “follow when
providing language access services to individuals with limited English proficiency”
and obligate AOC “to provid[e] meaningful access to its courts [for] all individuals,
regardless of national origin or limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand
English.” Standards, § 1.2. They seek to ensure “accurate communication in court
proceedings, protecti[on of] the integrity of evidence, and [the] provi[sion of]
language[-]access policies, services, and resources that enhance . . . interpreting and
translation services in North Carolina state courts.” Id. § 1.1. The Standards serve
- 10 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
an important administrative function, but they do not create a legal right to a statecourt interpreter—nor could they. Although the power to grant this right rests with
our General Assembly alone, see, e.g., N.C.G.S. §§ 8B-1 to -2 (establishing statutory
right to court interpreter for deaf individuals), the ability to appoint an interpreter
per se stems from “the inherent powers of the court” to “proper[ly] transact[ ] . . . its
business,” Wise v. Short, 181 N.C. 320, 322–23 (1921) (citing 11 Cyclopedia of Law
and Procedure 720 (1904)).
3. Inherent Powers
That distinction matters here. As noted, a trial “court has inherent authority
to appoint a foreign[-]language interpreter when, in [its] discretion . . . , an
interpreter is ‘necessary.’ ” Thomas L. Fowler, Matt E. Osborne, & Stephanie S.
Scarce, Interpreting in the Courts: The AOC’s Guidelines, N.C. State Bar J., Spring
2002, at 24 (quoting State v. Torres, 322 N.C. 440, 443 (1988)). A trial court’s inherent
authority—i.e., inherent power—“to effectively administer justice” stems from our
State Constitution and cannot “be abridged by the legislature.” Beard v. N.C. State
Bar, 320 N.C. 126, 129–30 (1987); cf. N.C.G.S. § 84-36. But as that Constitution
expressly contemplates, see N.C. Const. art. IV, § 15, we must “occasionally
exercise[ ]” this “scope of inherent power” “in the area of overlap between [B]ranches,”
In re Alamance Cty. Ct. Facilities, 329 N.C. 84, 96 (1991) (ellipses omitted). Where an
“overlap of power between [our L]egislative and [J]udicial [B]ranches is inevitable,”
our Supreme Court counsels a “judicious use of . . . inherent power” that both “bow[s]
- 11 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
to established procedural methods” as “an alternative” to its otherwise “extraordinary
exercise” and “minimize[s] the encroachment upon those with legislative authority.”
Id. at 97, 100–01. In other words, the AOC Director has authority to put in place
procedures to preserve the Judicial Branch’s inherent power to maintain “public . . .
confidence in our system of justice” subject to the Legislative Branch’s duty to
prescribe “an administrative office of the courts to carry out th[ose constitutional]
provisions,” N.C. Const. art. IV, § 15.4
This distinction constrains Defendant’s argument on appeal. To be sure, we
have recognized in dictum that particularly egregious “translation difficulties could
violate a non-English speaking defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” State
v. Uvalle, 151 N.C. App. 446, 452 (2002). Yet Defendant identifies no applicable
regulation amidst his repeated claims that the interpreter’s “violation of AOC
[S]tandards, coupled with his hostility to both their existence and the defense’s
insistence that he abide by them, amounted to a violation of . . . [his] right to due
process.” We cannot review a question of law where Defendant identifies no such
4 We note that the Constitution’s Article IV vests the General Assembly with “exclusive[ ]
responsib[ility] for raising the funds that sustain . . . [us] and preserve [our] autonomy.” In re
Alamance Cty. Ct. Facilities, 329 N.C. 84, 97 (1991). Were the General Assembly to exercise its
“right, at any time, to change th[e] method of the [D]irector[’s] appointment . . . and the [AOC’s]
operation,” Raymond B. Mallard, Inherent Power of the Courts of North Carolina, 10 Wake Forest
L. Rev. 1, 16 (1974), this “scope of the inherent power” might change “in the area of overlap between
[the B]ranches.” Alamance, 329 N.C. at 96. Because neither of these statutory mechanisms of
control have substantively changed since the original Judicial Department Act of 1965, though, we
need not address this “purely hypothetical question” now. Bryan A. Garner et al., The Law of
Judicial Precedent 133 (1st prtg. 2016). See generally N.C.G.S. Ann. §§ 7A-341, -343, at 509–10,
514 (LexisNexis 2025) (documenting no material amendments to statutory “appointment by the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court”).
- 12 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
question and thus turn to the applicable standard of review regarding a claim of
violated AOC Standards.
Although we have not addressed the extent of discretion afforded to a trial
court’s assessment of an interpreter’s conduct, our review of administrative actions—
here, the Standards’ promulgation—generally falls “under one of three standards in
North Carolina: de novo review; a ‘substantial evidence on the whole record’ test; or
an ‘any competent evidence’ test.” In re Rogers, 297 N.C. 48, 61 (1979) (quotation
omitted). For the reasons below, we hold that an assessment of an interpreter’s
compliance with the Standards is part of “the conduct of the trial” subject to “the
sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Lindsey, 25 N.C. App. 343, 347 (1975).
Our standard of review here “depends upon the nature of the alleged error.” In
re McCrary, 112 N.C. App. 161, 166 (1993). In determining this proper standard, we
find it necessary to briefly revisit the three theoretical possibilities in hierarchical
order: (1) a de novo review for any “errors of law,” id., (2) the “whole-record” test that
“examine[s] all competent evidence,” County of Wake v. N.C. Dep’t of ENR, 155 N.C.
App. 225, 233 (2002) (emphasis added), and (3) an “abuse-of-discretion” test that
merely looks for “any competent evidence,” Beightol v. Beightol, 90 N.C. App. 58, 60
(1988) (emphasis added).
a. De Novo Review
As previously mentioned, Defendant frames his argument as a question of law
that merits de novo review, arguing that the trial court misapplied the law by
- 13 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
declining to declare a mistrial in response to the interpreter’s conduct. But he
identifies no authority suggesting these Standards afford him any additional
constitutional protections. As our Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, we review de
novo the “state agency’s interpretation of its own rules or regulations,” not a trial
court’s subsequent application of that regulation to a given fact pattern. Mitchell v.
UNC Bd. of Govs., 388 N.C. 341, 343 (2025) (emphasis added). And because we
“seldom appl[y]” de novo review “in the absence of an express statutory provision,” we
“neither contemplate[ ] nor warrant[ it] here.” Rogers, 297 N.C. at 61. That leaves two
other options.
b. Whole-Record Test
Under the whole-record test, we examine the record for “all the competent
evidence” to determine whether “substantial evidence” supports the decision below.
McCrary, 112 N.C. App. at 168; see Administrative Procedure Act, ch. 1331, § 1, 1974
N.C. Sess. Laws 691, 701 [hereinafter APA] (“[u]nsupported by substantial evidence
. . . in view of the entire record”). This test is “less deferential” than one for an abuse
of discretion, In re Se. Baptist Theo. Seminary, 135 N.C. App. 247, 254 (1999), and
thus “merely gives [us] . . . the capability to determine whether an administrative
decision has a rational basis,” Rogers, 297 N.C. at 65. Much like with the abuse-ofdiscretion test, we ultimately may “not substitute our own judgment” for that of either
the lower court or the AOC Director in this context, “even . . . [with] conflicting views
of the evidence” at hand. Seminary, 135 N.C. App. at 254.
- 14 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
If we were to treat the Standards as administrative regulations, a superficially
plausible case could be made that the General Assembly has “endorsed” this test “as
the principal method of judicial review” to apply here. Rogers, 297 N.C. at 64–65.
Despite the APA’s exclusion of “those agencies in the [L]egislative or [J]udicial
[B]ranches” from the definition of “Agency,” APA, § 1, 1974 N.C. Sess. Laws at 692,
our Supreme Court has expressly adopted the APA’s whole-record test as the
preferred method on multiple occasions (and for certain Judicial Branch agencies, no
less), e.g., Rogers, 297 N.C. at 62 (Board of Law Examiners); N.C. State Bar v.
DuMont, 304 N.C. 627, 642 (1982) (State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission); see
L. Thomas Lunsford III, Lest We Be Misunderstood, N.C. State Bar J., Spring 2015,
at 6 (“[T]he State Bar is an arm of the judiciary.”).
We decline to similarly apply the whole-record test to the promulgated
Standards in the same manner as the Rogers and DuMont Courts did for two distinct
reasons. First, the Standards merely articulate and formalize our inherent power to
oversee “the orderly and efficient exercise of the administration of justice” for all the
reasons described above. Beard, 320 N.C. at 129; accord Standards, § 3.1 (“The
Director . . . promulgates policies and procedures that effectuate the efficient
administration of justice throughout the Judicial Branch.”). The Director also houses
the Standards firmly within the Judicial Branch as a normative matter by
promulgating them in his capacity as “an officer of the General Court of Justice.” John
V. Orth & Paul Martin Newby, The North Carolina State Constitution 138 (G. Alan
- 15 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
Tarr ed. 2d ed. 2013); see Alamance, 329 N.C. at 100 (“[T]he court[ ] . . . must bow to
established procedural methods . . . .”). Second (and more important), the Rogers and
DuMont Courts extended the APA’s review standards to judicial agency
adjudications, not rule promulgations per se. After reviewing the Standards here,
only § 15’s explanation of “disciplinary procedures for authorized spoken foreign
language court interpreters” conceivably implicates an AOC adjudication that might
merit a whole-record review in this context. Standards, § 15.1. But Defendant did not
“submit a complaint against an authorized court interpreter” that documented his
“alleged improper conduct,” id. § 15.4; he instead challenges the trial court’s midproceeding assessment of the interpreter’s conduct and denial of his motion for a
mistrial. Thus, we decline to apply the whole-record test here.
c. Abuse-of-Discretion Test
Both the grant of a mistrial and the appointment of a foreign-language
interpreter lie “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Williamson,
333 N.C. 128, 139 (1992) (mistrial); Torres, 322 N.C. at 443–44 (citing Wise, 181 N.C.
at 322) (interpreter appointment). The trial court may declare a mistrial if a “legal
defect in the proceedings or conduct inside . . . the courtroom . . . result[s] in
substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant’s case,” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1061
(brackets omitted), and may appoint an interpreter under its “inherent authority,”
Torres, 322 N.C. at 443. A trial court abuses its discretion only by “mak[ing] a
patently arbitrary decision, manifestly unsupported by reason.” Buford v. Gen.
- 16 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
Motors Corp., 339 N.C. 396, 406 (1994); see State v. Hill, 347 N.C. 275, 297 (1997)
(The trial court’s decision of whether to grant a mistrial is “given great deference
because the trial court is in the best position to determine whether the degree of
influence on the jury was irreparable.”). The inquiry into an interpreter’s
performance is part of “the orderly conduct of the trial” and “the proper
administration of justice” within the trial court’s discretion—absent a statutory
codification of the Standards or other “govern[ance of] the situation.” State v. Aytche,
98 N.C. App. 358, 363 (1990). For the reasons above and below, we hold that this
discretion extends to assessing whether a foreign-language interpreter’s performance
results in “substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant’s case” warranting
a mistrial. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1061.
Here, Defendant moved for a mistrial based on the interpreter (1) mimicking
Haniyeh’s stabbing hand motion when translating testimony about the stabbing; (2)
choosing “the English [words] that he believed best fit from his own experience”
instead of “asking the Court for its guidance” “when faced with multiple options . . .
in Farsi”; (3) mistranslating the word knife as gun before “immediately” correcting
himself; and (4) repeating the word go twice when Haniyeh said it once. In
considering Defendant’s motion, though, the trial court made numerous oral findings
demonstrating its thoughtful and deliberative consideration of (but ultimate
disregard for) the notion that any of these behaviors prejudiced Defendant’s case. It
found the innocuity of the interpreter’s “explanations of words” with multiple
- 17 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
meanings, his verbal repetitions, and his brief mistranslations—all of which the trial
court promptly “clarified very clearly in front of the jury.” It notably expressed its
“biggest concern” for the interpreter’s mimicking of Haniyeh’s hand gestures but then
concluded that her physical demonstration of the stabbing “moments later” “cured
any issue that could have been . . . substantial[ly] and irreparabl[y] prejudic[ial]” to
Defendant’s case. The trial court also offered Defendant a limiting instruction to the
jury, which he strategically refused. The trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion
was neither “arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason” in light of these facts.
Miles, 221 N.C. App. at 216. Because the trial court “is in the best position to
determine whether the degree of the influence on the jury was irreparable,” we hold
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a
mistrial. Hill, 347 N.C. at 297.
B. Motions to Dismiss
Defendant next argues the trial court erred in denying his two motions to
dismiss the charges of misdemeanor child abuse and first-degree kidnapping for
insufficient evidence. On appeal, we determine whether substantial evidence
supports (1) “each essential element of the crime” and (2) that “the defendant . . .
perpetrat[ed]” it. Call, 349 N.C. at 417. “[S]ubstantial evidence” is any “relevant
evidence . . . adequate to support a conclusion,” State v. Franklin, 327 N.C. 162, 171
(1990), which evidence “need only . . . satisfy a reasonable mind” on review, State v.
Butler, 356 N.C. 141, 145 (2002). The trial court must view all “evidence in the light
- 18 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
most favorable to the State, granting . . . [it] every reasonable inference to be drawn
[there]from.” Call, 349 N.C. at 417. “[A]ny evidence tending to prove guilt or which
reasonably leads to this conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction . . . is
for the jury” to decide “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Franklin, 327 N.C. at 171–72.
“[T]he only question before us . . . is whether a reasonable juror could have concluded
that the defendant was guilty based on the evidence presented by the State.” State v.
Watkins, 247 N.C. App. 391, 396 (2016).
If the evidence permits a reasonable inference of the defendant’s guilt, “then it
is for the jury to decide whether the facts, taken singly or in combination, satisfy it
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is actually guilty,” State v. Blagg, 377
N.C. 482, 489 (2021) (quotation omitted), “even [if] the evidence also permits a
reasonable inference of the defendant’s innocence,” State v. Miller, 363 N.C. 96, 99
(2009). “The province of the jury should not be invaded in any case, and when
reasonable minds, acting within the limitations prescribed by the rules of law, might
reach different conclusions, the evidence must be submitted to the jury.” State v.
Clark, 183 N.C. 733, 734–35 (1922). For this reason, in “borderline or close cases, our
courts have consistently expressed a preference for submitting issues to the jury.”
Blagg, 377 N.C. at 489. Having reviewed the dismissals de novo, we disagree with
Defendant and hold that the trial court did not err by denying either of Defendant’s
motions to dismiss. State v. Cox, 367 N.C. 147, 151 (2013).
1. Misdemeanor Child Abuse
- 19 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to
dismiss the charge of misdemeanor child abuse. He asserts that the State offered “no
evidence that [Daughter] was at ‘substantial risk of physical injury’ during”
Defendant’s assault of Haniyeh. We disagree.
A “parent of a child less than [sixteen] years of age” commits misdemeanor
child abuse by either “inflict[ing] physical injury, . . . allow[ing] physical injury to be
inflicted, or . . . allow[ing] to be created a substantial risk of physical injury” to the
child “by other than accidental means.” N.C.G.S. § 14-318.2(a). Here, Defendant does
not dispute that Daughter is less than 16 years old, and the State proceeded under
the theory that Defendant “created a substantial risk of physical injury” to the child.
Id. Thus, to survive Defendant’s motion to dismiss, “the State must introduce
substantial evidence” tending to show that Defendant “by other than accidental
means . . . created or allowed to be created a substantial risk of physical injury upon
the child.” Watkins, 247 N.C. App. at 395. Because N.C.G.S. § 14-318.2(a) does not
explicitly define “substantial risk of injury,” though, we “engage[ ] in a fact-specific
inquiry to determine if such risk exists.” State v. Adams, 285 N.C. App. 379, 384
(2022). Although our courts have not addressed the sufficiency of the evidence in this
precise factual scenario, they have done so under the substantial-risk theory of
misdemeanor child abuse in other circumstances. We find instructive State v.
Watkins and State v. Adams.
In State v. Watkins, we held that a lack of parental supervision can create a
- 20 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
“substantial risk of injury” without causing actual physical harm to the child. 247
N.C. App. at 391. There, the defendant had left her two-year-old son “alone and
helpless” inside a car with its windows over halfway down in eighteen-degree snowy
weather for over six minutes. Id. at 395. We determined that “a reasonable juror could
have found that [the defendant] created a substantial risk of physical injury” by other
than accidental means “[g]iven the harsh weather conditions, [the child’s] young age,
and the danger of hi[s] . . . abduct[ion] . . . due to the window being open more than
halfway.” Id. (quotation omitted); see State v. Benton, 301 N.C. App. 32, 37 (2025)
(sufficient evidence of lack of parental supervision creating substantial risk of injury
where it showed that six-year-old child wandered over a mile after defendant left her
unattended at public park).
In State v. Adams, we held that the “mere act of pulling” a child can create a
“substantial risk of injury” despite a short duration, lack of intent, and no actual harm
to the child. There, the defendants tried to remove their child from a car by pulling
him in opposite directions, dislodging his car seat from its “strapped in” position, and
causing him to “cry out” in pain. Adams, 285 N.C. App. at 387. Seeing that “Watkins
[was] the sole reported case applying the ‘substantial-risk’ prong,” we reviewed
several unpublished cases and observed that the risk length and actual harm to the
child was not dispositive because “the potentially dangerous incidents were quite
brief, just minutes, and in all but one case the children involved were fortunately
unharmed.” Id. Based on those cases, we reasoned that a parent could expose a child
- 21 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
to a substantial risk of physical injury merely by intentionally engaging in conduct
that exposes her to that risk. The dispositive question is the sufficiency of the State’s
evidence as to whether “the actions ‘created a substantial risk of physical injury’ . . .
by ‘other than accidental means.’ ” Id. at 386–87 (quoting Watkins, 247, N.C. App. at
396).
Accordingly, we must determine whether the State presented substantial
evidence from which a jury could “reasonably” infer that Defendant’s assault on
Haniyeh placed Daughter at “substantial risk of injury”—notwithstanding
Defendant’s intent to expose her to such risk, its duration, and whether she actually
suffered injury. Franklin, 327 N.C. at 171–72. Here, the evidence tended to show that,
after Haniyeh and Daughter tried to prevent Defendant from entering the bedroom
with a knife, Defendant forced his way inside and strangled and stabbed Haniyeh in
Daughter’s proximity. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, this evidence
supports an inference that Defendant abused Daughter where her close proximity to
his strangling of Haniyeh, and her presence in the room while he wielded a knife and
repeatedly stabbed Haniyeh, exposed her to “substantial risk of injury” such that a
reasonable juror could have concluded that Defendant committed misdemeanor child
abuse. See Watkins, 247 N.C. App. at 396; N.C.G.S. § 14-318.2(a). Thus, we hold that
the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the misdemeanorchild-abuse charge.
2. First-Degree Kidnapping
- 22 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
Defendant next argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss
because the State adduced “no evidence of confinement, restraint, or removal
separate from any which was inherent in the assaults and attempted murder.” We
disagree here as well.
a. Substantial Evidence
A defendant commits kidnapping by “unlawfully confin[ing], restrain[ing], or
remov[ing] from one place to another, any person . . . without [her] consent” “for the
purpose of” either “facilitating . . . any felony” or “doing serious bodily harm to or
terrorizing” her. N.C.G.S. § 14-39(a). It rises to the first degree if that same defendant
either “seriously injure[s]” or fails to release the person “in a safe place.” Id.
§ 14-39(b). Confinement is “some form of imprisonment within a given area,” e.g., “a
room, a house[,] or a vehicle,” while restraint “connotes a restriction” in movement
“by force, threat or fraud[ ] without a confinement.” State v. Fulcher, 294 N.C. 503,
523 (1978).
Here, the evidence tended to show that, after forcing the bedroom door open,
Defendant trapped Haniyeh in the bedroom corner by the door, hemmed in by a
dresser, while he wielded a knife between her and the doorway. Taken in the light
most favorable to the State, this evidence supports an inference that Defendant
“confined” Haniyeh “without her consent” for the “purpose of doing bodily harm” and
seriously injuring her such that a reasonable juror could have concluded that
Defendant committed first-degree kidnapping. See Watkins, 247 N.C. App. at 396;
- 23 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
N.C.G.S. § 14-39(a).
Notably, Defendant does not contend that the State failed to offer substantial
evidence of the elements of first-degree kidnapping, but that any evidence of restraint
was an inherent element of his other assaults, asserting that, “where any
confinement or restraint here was simply an inherent, inevitable element of the
underlying felonies of attempted murder, AWDWIKISI, and assault by strangulation,
all of which the jury convicted on, no separately punishable offense of kidnapping can
exist.” By Defendant’s own admission, this evidence could support a conviction of
first-degree kidnapping. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first-degree kidnapping charge.
b. Double Jeopardy
Defendant also argues that no evidence of restraint or confinement can support
a separate conviction for kidnapping because it inheres in the underlying felonies of
attempted first-degree murder, AWDWIKISI, and assault by strangulation. This
implies a double-jeopardy argument, not an evidence-insufficiency one. Essentially,
he believes that his multiple punishments for the same offense violate the
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. See U.S. Const. amend. V.
Defendant did not properly preserve this double-jeopardy argument because he failed
to ask the trial court to arrest judgment at sentencing. See State v. Mulder, 233 N.C.
App. 82, 86–87 (2014); N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1). But even if he had done so, double
jeopardy does not preclude punishing Defendant for kidnapping, attempted
- 24 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
first-degree murder, AWDWIKISI, and assault by strangulation where our
legislature intends to punish them as separate offenses. See Ohio v. Johnson, 467
U.S. 493, 499 (1984) (“[T]he question under the Double Jeopardy Clause [as to]
whether punishments are ‘multiple’ is essentially one of legislative intent.”).
We have long recognized that certain felonies require at least “some restraint
of the victim.” Fulcher, 294 N.C. at 523. The General Assembly did not intend the
kidnapping statute “to make a restraint, which is an inherent, inevitable feature of
such other felony, also kidnapping so as to permit the conviction and punishment of
the defendant for both crimes.” Id. “To hold otherwise would violate the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy.” Id.; accord State v. Gardner, 315 N.C. 444, 452
(1986) (“The Double Jeopardy Clauses of both the United States and North Carolina
Constitutions prohibit a court from imposing more punishment than that intended
by the legislature.”). But we have also clarified that two or more criminal offenses
may arise from the same course of action and that a conviction for kidnapping does
not violate double jeopardy when the restraint supporting the kidnapping “is a
separate, complete act, independent of and apart from the other felony.” State v.
China, 370 N.C. 627, 634 (2018) (quoting Fulcher, 294 N.C. at 523). While
constitutional protections against double jeopardy do not preclude convictions for
both kidnapping and another felony from the same course of action, the “restraint”
constituting the kidnapping must be “separate and apart from that which . . .
inhere[s] in the commission of the other felony.” Fulcher, 294 N.C. at 523.
- 25 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
But restraint is not an inherent element of either AWDWIKISI or assault by
strangulation. See State v. Carrillo, 115 N.C. App. 674, 677 (2018) (holding that
AWDWIKISI “is not within that class of felonies” because it “may be committed
without ever necessitating the restraint or confining the victim”); State v. Braxton,
183 N.C. App. 36, 41 (2007) (holding that “nothing in the statutory definition of
assault by strangulation . . . requires proof that the perpetrator restrained the victim
in any manner, with the exception of the act of strangulation”). Thus, any evidence of
restraint is necessarily separate and apart from the elements of either AWDWIKISI
or assault by strangulation. See Carrillo, 115 N.C. App at 677; Braxton, 183 N.C. App.
at 41. We have yet to decide whether restraint is an inherent element of attempted
first-degree murder. See State v. Johnson, 183 N.C. App. 576, 581 (2007) (declining
to resolve question). Its express elements are: “(1) a specific intent to kill another
person unlawfully; (2) an overt act calculated to carry out that intent, going beyond
mere preparation; (3) the existence of malice, premeditation, and deliberation
accompanying the act; and (4) a failure to complete the intended killing.” State v.
Peoples, 141 N.C. App. 115, 117 (2000) (citing N.C.G.S. § 14-17). Here, nothing in the
statutory definition of attempted first-degree murder requires proof of either
restraint or confinement. Accordingly, we conclude that attempted first-degree
murder falls outside that “inherent” class of offenses.
Even assuming arguendo that attempted first-degree murder does fall within
that “inherent” class, a kidnapping conviction may still stand where the evidence
- 26 -STATE V. SANDI
Opinion of the Court
demonstrates confinement or restraint independent of the attempted killing.
Consistent with these principles, the restraint’s occurrence during the same course
of conduct as the assaults does not preclude a separate kidnapping conviction so long
as the restraint was distinct from that necessary to commit the other offenses. See
Fulcher, 294 N.C. at 523; China, 370 N.C. at 634. Where, as here, the evidence shows
Haniyeh’s restraint independent from the elements of the underlying felonies,
Defendant’s kidnapping conviction does not violate double-jeopardy principles. See
Johnson, 83 N.C. App. at 581.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, this Court holds the trial court did not err (1) by denying
Defendant’s motion for a mistrial; (2) by denying his motion to dismiss the charge of
misdemeanor child abuse; and (3) by denying his motion to dismiss the charge of
first-degree kidnapping.
NO ERROR.
Chief Judge DILLON concurs.
Judge HAMPSON concurs by separate opinion.
- 27 -No. COA25-430 – State v. Sandi
HAMPSON, Judge, concurring.
I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial. I also agree the trial court did not err in
denying Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss. I write separately to clarify two points.
First, our standard of review for reviewing the denial of a mistrial is very clear.
We review for an abuse of discretion by the trial court. We review alleged
constitutional errors de novo. Here, no party claimed anything else. Certainly, there
was no suggestion that we apply the statutory standard of review applicable to
administrative claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. Any analysis on that
front only confuses the matter. It suffices to say, upon review of the Record there was
no error arising to a violation of due process—and, in turn, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by denying the Motion to Dismiss.
Second, I agree that there was sufficient evidence of restraint or confinement
beyond that inherent in the other offenses to support submission of the kidnapping
charge to the jury. I, however, believe it is important to make clear that this specific
evidence was Defendant’s act of trapping the victim behind the door against the
dresser. This act was beyond that inherent in the stabbing of the victim.