STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF ROCKINGHAM 04 CPS 1305

CHRISTOPHER C. SEARCY, )

Petitioner; )

)

)

v. )

) DECISION

)

N.C. CRIME VICTIMS )

COMPENSATION COMMISSION, )

Respondent. )

THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the Honorable Beecher R. Gray, Administrative Law Judge, on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 in High Point, North Carolina.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Christopher C. Searcy, Pro Se

1969 Hickory Fork Road

Walnut Cove, North Carolina 27052

For Respondent: Donald K. Phillips

Assistant Attorney General

North Carolina Department of Justice

9001 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-9001

PETITIONER’S WITNESSES

Petitioner, Christopher C. Searcy.

RESPONDENT’S WITNESSES

Shane Bullins, Deputy, Rockingham County Sheriff’s Department.

EXHIBITS

The following exhibits were admitted into evidence on behalf of Petitioner:

1. None.

The following exhibits were admitted into evidence on behalf of Respondent:

1. Respondent’s Exhibit 1—(Photocopy Petitioner’s Victim Compensation Application).

2. Respondent’s Exhibit 2—(Photocopy of computerized criminal case disposition sheet of David Dwayne Holiday from the Administrative Office of the Court).

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Was the victim participating in a felony at or about the time that his injury occurred pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(a)(6)?

2. Was the victim participating in a nontraffic misdemeanor at or about the time that his injury occurred pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(b)(1)?

3. Did the victim engage in contributory misconduct pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(b)(2)?

4. Has Petitioner presented substantial evidence to establish that the requirements for an award have been met pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 15B-4(a) and 15B-2(12a)?

5. Has Petitioner’s alleged losses upon which his claim is based been or will be recouped from a collateral source pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(d)?

6. Did Petitioner comply with the provisions of filing of his Victim Compensation Application pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 15B-7 and 8?

Based upon the testimony at the hearing and the whole record, the undersigned makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner in this case is Christopher C. Searcy (hereinafter “Petitioner”). On 24 October 2003, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Petitioner’s son, Christopher Cornelius Wright (hereinafter “victim”) was with approximately three other people; Anthony Tyrone Red, a.k.a. “Chicken” (hereinafter “Chicken”), Anthony Manuel Wilfong, (hereinafter “Mr. Wilfong”), and David Dwayne Holiday, a.k.a. “Daylight,” (hereinafter “offender”), along a path in the woods in Madison, North Carolina. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B). The path is a worn out trail between West End Boulevard and Wilson Street in Madison where people walk back and forth through a small patch of woods. Id. The path was near where both victim and offender lived. Id. While along the path in the woods, the victim got into an altercation with the offender, who stabbed the victim to death. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B; Respondent’s Prehearing Statement).

2. On or about 19 November 2003, Petitioner completed a Victim Compensation Application on behalf of the victim seeking funeral expenses. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A; Respondent’s Prehearing Statement and Documents Constituting Agency Action; and Respondent’s Exhibit 1). The North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, Victim Compensation Services Division, Crime Victims Compensation Commission (hereinafter “Respondent”) received Petitioner’s application. Id.

3. Following an investigation and review of the claim, Respondent denied Petitioner’s claim. (Respondent’s Prehearing Statement and Documents Constituting Agency Action). On 10 June 2004, Respondent mailed Petitioner a cover letter, Recommendation of Director for Denial, and Determination of Commission Denied explaining the denial and giving notice to Petitioner of his right to appeal. Id.

4. On 4 August 2004, Petitioner submitted a form Petition for a Contested Case Hearing (with attached pages) to the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging that Respondent acted “arbitrarily and capriciously.” (Petition for a Contested Case Hearing).

5. Shane Bullins testified at the hearing. Bullins currently is a Deputy Sheriff with the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Department. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). He has been employed in that capacity since July 2004. Id. Prior to joining the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Department, Bullins was employed with the Madison Police Department from January 1998 to July 2004. Id. The Madison Police Department has approximately ten sworn law enforcement officers. Id. Madison has approximately 1,200 residents. Id. During his first two years of employment with the Madison Police Department, Bullins served as a Patrol Officer and as a School Resource Officer. Id. Bullins then was promoted to Detective where he served in that capacity for over four years. Id. As a Detective, his duties included investigating the majority of felonies that occurred in the City of Madison. Id.

6. Bullins is familiar with the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death and the underlying criminal investigation and prosecution because he was the lead investigator on the case. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A; Respondent’s Exhibit 2). At the time he was lead investigator, Bullins was a Detective with the Madison Police Department. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). Bullins was called to the scene; made observations; assisted in the collection of evidence; and questioned available witnesses, including the offender, Mr. Wilfong, Chicken, and others. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B). Furthermore, Bullins followed-up on the criminal proceedings, stated the results of his investigation and findings to Respondent, and otherwise provided information to Respondent’s investigators concerning the case sub judice, which Petitioner initiated. Id.

7. On 24 October 2003, at approximately 4:30 or 4:45 p.m., Bullins was about to end his shift at 5:00 p.m. when he assisted another narcotics officer on a vehicle stop. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). The vehicle was driven by a white male, whom Bullins had never had any contact with. Id. Also in the vehicle were the victim and Chicken. Id. Bullins knew Chicken and the victim and had arrested both of them before. Id. Bullins and the other officer began to speak to the three occupants. Id. During a search of the driver, Bullins discovered crack cocaine and arrested the driver for Possession of Cocaine (a felony). Id. The victim and Chicken gave Bullins their consent for him to search them. Id. Bullins did not find any controlled substances on either Chicken or victim but did find a large amount of money, approximately $900.00 in cash, on the victim. Id. Bullins and the other officer did not charge Chicken or the victim and therefore released them. Id. Bullins then left the scene to process the driver. Id. When the processing was complete, Bullins left and went home. Id.

8. According to law enforcement investigations, including Bullins’s investigation, witness interviews, and the physical evidence, when the victim and Chicken were released from the 5:30 p.m. vehicle stop, they left and drove to Greensboro and bought a “big eight” or “eight ball” of crack cocaine. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B). During the trip, Chicken and the victim spent approximately $600.00. Id. Chicken and the victim then drove back to the victim’s grandfather’s house at 313 West End Boulevard where they “cut” up the cocaine and smoked it. Id. The victim lived with his grandfather at 313 West End Boulevard, which was approximately 25 feet away from the path area that connected West End Boulevard to Wilson Street. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). Chicken and the victim were at the victim’s grandfather’s house for awhile and then left to walk across the street to the path. Id.

9. Linda Faye Stewart (hereinafter “Linda Faye”) lives directly behind the path area. Linda Faye and her five children, including her daughter, Shenita “Nita” Stewart (hereinafter “Nita”), Mr. Wilfong, Shawnita Barber, a.k.a. “Ms. Tootie,” (hereinafter “Ms. Barber”), Chicken, the offender, and the victim had been at Linda Faye’s residence and around the area of the path off and on during the evening. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B). Mr. Wilfong, the offender, Chicken, and the victim were together that evening on the path and went back and forth to Linda Faye’s house. Id.

10. Bullins is familiar with the drug traffic and trade throughout Madison because of his experience as a police officer and Detective having conducted numerous controlled substance investigations. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B). It has been Bullins’s experience and it is his opinion that drug dealers in Madison know each other’s area. Id. Bullins knew Mr. Wilfong because Mr. Wilfong had been convicted of drugs. Id. Bullins was familiar with the offender because he previously had assisted another officer in arresting the offender. Id. The victim and the offender had been in a “turf war” because the offender was selling controlled substances in that patch of woods, which was the victim’s part of the city. Id. The offender was from Walnut Cove in Stokes County and was living at Linda Faye’s house and was dating her daughter, Nita. Id. Based upon his investigation, Bullins’s opinion was that the offender was in the victim’s “territory,” the area where the victim was known to have sold drugs. Id.

11. At one point all four men were on the path drinking beer. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). At approximately 8:30 p.m., while all four were in the area of the path, the victim threatened to shoot the offender because the offender was making money, especially in “his” area, and the victim was not. Id. The offender then asked the victim, “Are you talking about killing me?” Id. The offender then informed the victim that the offender had children. Id. The victim then began to make fun of the offender’s girlfriend, Nita. Id. The victim left for a brief moment and then came back on the path accompanied by Chicken. Id. The offender told Mr. Wilfong that he believed that the victim and Chicken were going to “jump” him. Id. The victim then hit the offender knocking the offender against the tree. Id.

12. The offender then got up off the tree and hit the victim. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). The victim and the offender “wrapped up” and proceeded to fight. Id. The offender stabbed the victim, who screamed and fell to the ground. Id. The victim was stabbed a total of four times—at least once in his left leg or thigh area, once on each side of his shoulder, and once through his neck. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B). The victim then got up off the ground, took off running, and fell. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). The offender fled and left the area in a burgundy vehicle. Id. Mr. Wilfong went over to the victim and Chicken, who was standing over the victim. Id. Chicken called to the victim but the victim did not respond. Id. Chicken then took off running and Mr. Wilfong called to the victim but got no reply. Id. Mr. Wilfong then flicked a cigarette lighter and saw blood coming from the victim. Id. The victim was still breathing so Mr. Wilfong ran directly across the road to a neighbor’s house, which was about 20 feet away. Id.

13. At approximately 8:30 or 8:45 p.m., three hours after the vehicle stop involving the victim and Chicken, Officer Bullins was dispatched by the Rockingham County communications center to respond to a homicide in the woods at West End Boulevard. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). When Bullins arrived at the crime scene, other Madison Police officers and EMS personnel, who were already there, briefed him. Id. With the assistance of other officers, Bullins immediately began to process the scene. Id. Bullins learned that the victim, who was lying in the woods along the path, had been pronounced dead by medical personnel. Id. When Bullins viewed the body he knew it was the victim. Id. Bullins also learned of a potential suspect, the offender, and witnesses while at the scene. Id. Bullins contacted the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Department and requested Lieutenant Brian Wallace to assist in photographing and processing the crime scene. Id. Because the Madison Police Department has limited resources, and given its small size, it often shares and uses available services of the Sheriff’s Department. Id.

14. After the crime scene was processed, the victim’s body was taken to the hospital. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). Bullins and other officers processed the victim’s clothing and personal belongings at the hospital. Id. While examining the victim’s clothing, Bullins found approximately $200.00 to $300.00 in cash in one of the victim’s pockets. Id. This was approximately $600.00 less than the amount Bullins had found on the victim just a few hours earlier. Id.

15. The offender was approximately 5’8” or 5’9” tall and weighed approximately 145 or 150 pounds. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). The victim was approximately 6’3” tall and weighed approximately 215 or 220 pounds. Id. This was a substantial size difference.

16. Bullins spoke with other witnesses. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B). There were no witnesses that Bullins spoke with that led him to different findings. Id. Bullins reported his findings to the District Attorney’s Office. Id. He also reported his findings to the Crime Victims Compensation Commission investigator. Id. These reports did not differ in any way to what he stated at the hearing. Id.

17. The offender was convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter on 15 March 2004 for killing the victim. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B; Respondent’s Exhibit 2). Per the conviction, the offender was sentenced to an active term of 60 to 80 months in prison and was ordered to pay Petitioner $6,523 in restitution. Id. No Restitution has been paid, but restitution is scheduled to be paid when the offender gets out of prison. Id. Based upon the fact that: 1) the victim had a substantial size advantage over the offender and 2) that the victim first assaulted the offender and was therefore the aggressor, the offender was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and not a greater homicide charge. Id. The victim could have been charged with, at a minimum, a simple assault had he lived. Bullins’s opinion was that the victim was participating in an assault at or about the time of his injury. Id.

18. At the time of his death, the victim was one of many who were under investigation by the narcotics division of the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Department. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). In the fall of 2003, the Sheriff’s Department conducted a countywide undercover drug operation. Id. Specifically, in September 2003, narcotics officers had made two separate undercover buys of cocaine from the victim. Id. In one of the exchanges, the victim sold officers a counterfeit controlled substance purporting it to be crack cocaine. Id. In the second incident, the victim sold crack cocaine to the officers. Id. Officers did not immediately arrest the victim and other suspects but instead waited for lab results and indictments before charging those who had been the focus of the investigation. Id. The substances collected from operation were collected and sent to the SBI lab for identity confirmation. Id. This process took several months. Id. Once the results came back, in early 2004, the cases were brought before the Grand Jury, which handed down indictments for those under investigation. Id. Following the indictments, a roundup took place in the spring of 2004 based upon the investigations from the fall of 2003. Id. By the time arrests could be made in the undercover operation, the victim was already deceased. Id. The victim would have been charged with at least two felonies had he not died. Id.

19. The victim was known throughout the community, and to law enforcement as being a participant in drug activity. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). Additionally, Bullins is familiar with the victim and the victim’s prior criminal convictions because he had arrested the victim several times and had other dealings with him and his “associates.” Id. Bullins had previously arrested the victim for Possession of Cocaine and Marijuana as well as various traffic offenses. Id. Bullins had also printed-out the victim’s criminal record several times for court purposes and was very familiar with its contents. Id. Reading from the victim’s criminal record, Bullins testified that the victim had several prior convictions including: 1) two separate assaults (misdemeanors) in 1998, 2) Common Law Robbery (felony) in 2000, 3) Possession with Intent to Sell and Deliver Cocaine (felony) in 2000, 3) Selling Cocaine (felony) in 2000, and 4) Possession of Cocaine (felony) in 2000. Id. Additionally, the victim had a felony probation violation in 2001. Id.

20. Petitioner testified at the hearing. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B). Although he did not see his son on 24 October 2004 and was not at the crime scene, Petitioner did speak to the victim on the telephone. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side A). Petitioner knew that his son was “doing wrong” and selling drugs. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Side B). Petitioner also admitted that the victim was a convicted felon. Id. Petitioner did not provide any bills or evidence of any expenses at the hearing nor any rebuttal evidence of Respondent’s case. (Hearing Tape 1 of 1, Sides A and B).

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the undersigned makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent has the authority and responsibility under North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 15B, the “North Carolina Crime Victims Compensation Act,” to administer the Act in North Carolina, including the investigation and award or denial of claims.

2. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 150-34(a), in making a Decision, the “administrative law judge shall decide the case based upon the preponderance of the evidence, giving due regard to the demonstrated knowledge and expertise of the agency with respect to facts and inferences within the specialized knowledge of the agency.” (emphasis added).

3. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing, by substantial evidence, that he is entitled as a “claimant,” pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15B-2(2), to compensation from Respondent. Regarding awards of compensation, N.C.G.S. § 15B-4 provides that “compensation for criminally injurious conduct shall be awarded to a claimant if substantial evidence establishes that the requirements for an award have been met.” Substantial evidence is defined pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15B-2(12a) as “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

4. Substantial evidence exists to show that the victim was the “victim” of “criminally injurious conduct” as those terms are defined in N.C.G.S. §§ 15B-2(5) and (13).

5. North Carolina General Statute § 15B-11 lists grounds for denial of a claim for compensation or for reduction of an award. The substantial evidence in this contested case establishes that at least two grounds for denial or reduction of award are present in this case.

6. North Carolina General Statutes §§ 15B-11(b)(1) and (2) allow the Commission to use its discretion (“may deny”) to evaluate a claim and make appropriate decisions based on its findings. The Commission already denied Petitioner’s claim based upon the victim’s participating in a nontraffic misdemeanor at or about the time of his injury and engaging in contributory misconduct pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 15B-11(b)(1), and (2), but the facts also present an additional reason for denial; participation in a felony at or about the time of his injury pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 15B-11(a)(6).

7. North Carolina General Statute § 15B-11(a)(6) states that “[a]n award of compensation shall be denied if . . . [t]he victim was participating in a felony at or about the time that the victim’s injury occurred.” (emphasis added).

8. Pursuant to the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(a)(6), if substantial evidence establishes that the victim was participating in a felony, then Respondent has no discretion but to deny the claim. The term “participate” is not defined in Chapter 15B but should be given its plain, ordinary, everyday meaning which according to Black’s Law Dictionary is “to receive or have a part or share of; to partake of; experience in a common with others; to have or enjoy a part or share in common with others” and to The American Heritage Dictionary it is “to take part; join or share with others” or to “partake of.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1118 (6th ed 1990) and The American Heritage Dictionary 905 (2d ed. 1985). The provisions of N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(a)(6) do not require that Respondent prove that the victim was or could have been charged or convicted with a felony but merely “participating.” If, however, a victim was convicted of the felony or could have been, then this is certainly substantial evidence to show participation.

9. The substantial evidence of this case establishes that the victim was participating in a felony at or about the time of his injury. North Carolina General Statute § 90-95 provides that it is a felony to possess cocaine. The substantial stipulated evidence establishes that the victim was convicted of at least two cocaine related felonies and would have been charged with others had he lived. Furthermore, the substantial evidence demonstrates that the victim was “participating” in this felony by traveling immediately to Greensboro to buy crack cocaine after being stopped and searched for drugs. The victim bought the cocaine and brought it back to his residence to use it right before he was killed. The victim exercised custody, care, or control of cocaine at or about the time of his injury. Therefore, Petitioner’s claim shall be denied.

10. North Carolina General Statutes § 15B-11(b)(1) states that “[a] claim may be denied or an award of compensation may be reduced if . . . [t]he victim was participating in a nontraffic misdemeanor at or about the time that the victim's injury occurred[.]”

11. The victim was participating in at least two nontraffic misdemeanors at or about the time of injury pursuant to the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(b)(1). The victim did “participate” by taking part or sharing with others in at least one count of misdemeanor assault or affray in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-33. When he struck the offender, the victim was participating in an assault. When he began publicly fighting the offender, he then was engaged in an affray. By substantial evidence the victim participated in an assault and an affray because: 1) multiple witnesses stated that the victim taunted the offender and was angry at him for selling drugs in “his area”; 2) the victim struck the offender first; 3) both the victim and the offender then proceeded to fight in a public place; and 4) the victim had prior convictions for assault and drug possession and distribution. Neither assault nor affray are offenses found in Chapter 20 (the motor vehicle code) but are instead located in Chapter 14 (the criminal code). Therefore, these violations are nontraffic misdemeanors.

12. North Carolina General Statutes § 15B-11(b)(2) states that “[a] claim may be denied or an award of compensation may be reduced if . . . [t]he claimant or a victim through whom the claimant claims engaged in contributory misconduct.” (emphasis added).

13. Neither “engaged” nor “contributory misconduct” is defined in Chapter 15B. As with “participating,” the term “engage” should be given its plain, ordinary, everyday meaning which according to Black’s Law Dictionary is “[t]o employ or involve one’s self; to take part in; to embark on” and to The American Heritage Dictionary it is “to involve oneself or become occupied; participate.” Black’s Law Dictionary 528 (6th ed 1990) and The American Heritage Dictionary 454 (2d ed. 1985). The term “contributory misconduct” has been addressed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals who held that:

the conduct of the claimant is misconduct if it is not within the accepted norm or standard of proper behavior, which includes unlawful conduct. Consistent with principles of tort law, the test for determining accepted norms and proper behavior is best determined by use of a reasonable man standard or what a reasonable person would have done under similar and like circumstances.

Evans v. North Carolina Dep’t of Crime Control & Public Safety, 101 N.C. App. 108, 117, 398 S.E.2d 880, 885 (1990)(emphasis added). The Court went on to say that:

Accordingly, if there is in the record substantial evidence that a person of ordinary prudence would have reasonably foreseen that the conduct in question would lead to an injurious result, and if this conduct was unlawful or if it breached the standard of conduct acceptable to a reasonable person, the Commission should be affirmed in denying or reducing claimant’s benefits.

Id. at 118, 398 S.E.2d at 885.

Pursuant to the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(b)(2), if substantial evidence establishes that the victim was engaged in contributory misconduct, then Respondent has discretion and “may deny” the claim. Unlike the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(a)(6), this statute does not mandate that Respondent must either award or deny a claim. Instead, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(b)(2) “[t]he Commission shall use its discretion in determining whether to deny a claim under this subsection. In exercising its discretion, the Commission may consider whether any proximate cause exists between the injury and the misdemeanor or contributory misconduct.” (emphasis added).

14. The substantial evidence of this case establishes that the victim was engaged in contributory misconduct. The victim was “involved in” or “became occupied” with conduct that certainly was “not within the accepted norm or standard of proper behavior,” and a reasonable and prudent person would not have so acted “under similar and like circumstances.” Furthermore, but/for the victim’s: 1) being a convicted felon of drug crimes; 2) having been incarcerated for those drug convictions; 3) driving to Greensboro to buy cocaine voluntarily after just being stopped and searched for drugs; 4) buying cocaine and using cocaine; 5) voluntarily placing himself along a path at night with a rival drug dealer; 6) choosing to associate himself with known drug dealers and users, which was the majority of the individuals along the path; 7) knowing that he was on the path where alcohol was being used and consumed by everyone; 8) lack of evidence that he was coerced or forced to go or stay along the path in that environment; 9) taunting and threatening a rival drug dealer; and then 10) initially striking the offender who was outweighed and outsized by the victim, he would not have been stabbed. This mix of knives, felons, alcohol, cocaine, and rivalry, combined with overconfidence and anger, resulted in the victim’s unfortunate death.

15. Petitioner failed to provide by substantial evidence that he had incurred an allowable expense within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 15B-2(1) because Petitioner provided Respondent with absolutely no documentation or other evidence at the hearing that he paid any funeral expenses or had any remaining balance.

16. Overall, Petitioner has failed to provide substantial evidence to establish that the requirements for an award have been met pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 15B-4(a) and 15B-2(12a). Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to compensation from Respondent.

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned makes the following:

DECISION

Respondent should DENY Petitioner’s claim because Petitioner did not prove by substantial evidence that he is entitled to an award and the victim was, by substantial evidence: 1) participating in a nontraffic misdemeanor at or about the time of his injury pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(b)(1); 2) engaging in contributory misconduct pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(b)(2); and 3) participating in a felony at or about the time of his injury pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15B-11(a)(6)

NOTICE

The agency making the final decision in this contested case is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to this decision issued by the undersigned, and to present written arguments to those in the agency who will make the final decision. N.C.G.S. § 150B-36(a). In accordance with N.C.G.S. § 150B-36 the agency shall adopt each finding of fact contained in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision unless the finding is clearly contrary to the preponderance of the admissible evidence. For each finding of fact not adopted by the agency, the agency shall set forth separately and in detail the reasons for not adopting the finding of fact and the evidence in the record relied upon by the agency in not adopting the finding of fact. For each new finding of fact made by the agency that is not contained in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, the agency shall set forth separately and in detail the evidence in the record relied upon by the agency in making the finding of fact. The agency shall adopt the decision of the Administrative Law Judge unless the agency demonstrates that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is clearly contrary to the preponderance of the admissible evidence in the official record. The agency that will make the final decision in this case is the North Carolina Crime Victims Compensation Commission.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that the agency making the final decision in this matter serve a copy of the final decision to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 150B-36.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

This the 19th day of January 2005.

______________________________

Beecher R. Gray Administrative Law Judge

Administrative Law Judge

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download