Bad judgment is not always a crime. In State v. Sanchez, No. COA24-644 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2026), the North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated both convictions against a sheriff’s deputy who encouraged a 17-year-old girl to tase herself during a ride-along. The Court acknowledged that the deputy’s behavior was irresponsible and violated department policy — but held that the State simply failed to prove the specific elements of the crimes it charged. The decision is a sharp illustration of why the statutory elements of a criminal offense matter, and why motions to dismiss deserve serious attention from defense attorneys and trial courts alike.
What Happened
Luis Alberto Sanchez was a sheriff’s deputy and school resource officer in Avery County who helped run a Police Explorers program for high school students. In June 2021, he invited a 17-year-old participant on a ride-along. During the evening, the situation took a troubling turn: the teenager testified that Sanchez and another deputy told her she would be tased, threatened that they would tase her if she didn’t do it herself, and told her to keep the incident secret afterward. The teenager ultimately used one of the deputies’ tasers on her own leg.
A grand jury indicted Sanchez on two charges: contributing to the abuse of a juvenile under N.C.G.S. § 14-316.1, and willfully failing to discharge his duties of office under N.C.G.S. § 14-230. A jury convicted him on both counts. He appealed, arguing that the trial court should have granted his motions to dismiss because the State’s evidence did not support the statutory elements of either charge.
Contributing to Abuse: The “Caretaker” Problem
The first charge required the State to show that Sanchez knowingly or willfully caused, encouraged, or aided a juvenile to be in a condition where she could be adjudicated “abused” under North Carolina’s Juvenile Code. Specifically, the jury was instructed on the definition in N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(1)(b), which defines an abused juvenile as one whose “parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker” creates or allows a substantial risk of serious physical injury.
The Court of Appeals found that the State never proved the necessary connection to any of those four categories of people. Ann’s parents were not present during the ride-along, and no guardian or custodian was involved. While Sanchez may have looked like a “caretaker” in the everyday sense of the word, the statute defines “caretaker” narrowly: a person with responsibility for a juvenile’s health and welfare in a residential setting — someone with parental-type responsibility for the child’s daily care, like a stepparent, foster parent, or group home worker. A deputy supervising a student ride-along does not fit that definition, and a ride-along is not a residential setting.
Without evidence tying the risk of injury to a parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker, the State could not prove the juvenile could have been adjudicated “abused” under the statute — and without that, the contributing-to-abuse charge could not stand.
Failure to Discharge Duties: Action Is Not Omission
The second charge under N.C.G.S. § 14-230 required the State to prove that Sanchez willfully omitted, neglected, or refused to discharge a duty of his office. The State’s theory was creative but flawed: it argued that by violating the law against contributing to abuse, Sanchez simultaneously failed to enforce that same law.
The Court of Appeals rejected this reasoning. It noted that the words “omit,” “neglect,” and “refuse” all describe the same type of conduct — failing to act when circumstances require action. Every prior case applying the statute involved an officer who encountered an external situation triggering a duty and then declined to perform it. For example, an officer who discovers contraband but refuses to make an arrest, or a police chief who learns of ongoing criminal activity but willfully declines to investigate.
Here, nothing external triggered a duty. There was no complaint, no reported crime, no probable cause. The risk only existed because Sanchez himself created it. The Court found that actively committing misconduct is not the same as failing to perform a duty, and that the State’s theory — that any officer who violates a criminal law is also guilty of failing to discharge his duties — would stretch the statute far beyond its text.
Why This Case Matters
The Sanchez decision is a reminder that criminal charges must match the conduct. Even when behavior is plainly wrong, the State must still prove every element of the offense it chose to charge. Here, the deputy’s conduct may well have been criminal under a different theory or a different statute — but the State did not charge those offenses, and the ones it did charge did not fit the facts.
For anyone facing criminal charges in North Carolina, this case underscores the importance of carefully analyzing whether the State’s evidence actually matches the specific statutory elements of each charge. A well-timed motion to dismiss, grounded in the precise language of the statute, can be outcome-determinative. This is particularly true in cases involving criminal investigations of law enforcement officers, where prosecutors sometimes stretch existing statutes to reach conduct that is clearly inappropriate but does not fit neatly within the charged offense.
Contact The Chetson Firm
If you are facing criminal charges in North Carolina — whether as a private citizen or a public official — it is essential to have a defense attorney who will scrutinize every element the State must prove. Damon Chetson is a Board Certified Specialist in State and Federal Criminal Law with extensive trial experience. Contact The Chetson Firm to discuss your case.