Preview:

NORRIS R. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. TOWN OF STALLINGS BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT and TOWN OF STALLINGS, Respondents
No. COA99-1513
                                                                              (Filed                                                       29 December  2000)
1.                                                                            Zoning--board of adjustment--review of decision
The trial court sits in the posture of an appellate court
when reviewing the decision of a board of adjustment.    De novo
review is proper if a petitioner contends the board’s decision
was based on an error of law, but the whole record test must be
applied if a petitioner contends the board’s decision was not
supported by the evidence or was arbitrary or capricious.    The
role of the appellate court is to review the trial court’s order
for errors of law, determining whether the appropriate scope of
review was exercised and whether it was exercised properly.
2.                                                                            Zoning--de novo standard of review--appropriate
The trial court appropriately applied the de novo standard
of review to    the decision of a board of adjustment where
petitioner contended that the board erroneously concluded that
his video store was an  “adult establishment” based on his refusal
to testify.    This presents a question of law.
3.                                                                            Constitutional Law--privilege against self-incrimination--
civil hearing--possibility of criminal prosecution
A video store owner could properly invoke his constitutional
privilege against self-incrimination in a hearing before the
board of adjustment where his testimony regarding the sale or
rental of certain items could subject him to criminal
prosecution.
4.                                                                            Zoning--refusal to testify--inference of permit violation
It was proper for a board of adjustment to infer a violation
of a zoning permit from a video store owner’s refusal to testify
and to conclude that the store qualified as an adult bookstore
where there was evidence giving rise to the probability that a
majority of his gross income was derived from the sale or rental
of adult publications.    The owner’s refusal to attempt to refute
this evidence is tantamount to a silent admission of the charge
against him.    It is well established that a trier of fact may
infer guilt where a civil party has the opportunity to refute
damaging evidence but chooses not to do so.
Appeal  by  petitioner  from  order  entered                                  31  August                                                   1999  by
Judge  William  H.  Helms  in  Union  County  Superior  Court.    Heard  in
the Court of Appeals  18 October  2000.




Goodman, Carr, Nixon, Laughrun & Levine, by Miles S. Levine,
for petitioner-appellant.
Perry,  Bundy,  Plyler  &  Long,  L.L.P.,  by  H.  Ligon  Bundy,  and
Griffin,  Smith,  Caldwell,  Helder  &  Lee,  P.A.,  by  Betsy  L.
Glenn and W. David Lee, for the respondent-appellees.
LEWIS, Judge.
Petitioner  Norris  Davis  appeals  the  trial  court's  31  August
1999  order  affirming  the  Town  of  Stallings  Board  of  Adjustment's
determination that petitioner was operating an unauthorized "adult
establishment."    We affirm the trial court's order.
Davis is the owner and operator of "The Executive Video Club,"
a video store located in Stallings, North Carolina.   On 28 October
1997,  Davis  obtained  a  zoning  permit  for  a  "change  of  principal
use," allowing a video store with an adult video room.   Handwritten
on the permit were the following limitations:
This permit is good for a video store with an
adult video room.    The majority of all movies
must  not  be  adult  videos.                                                All  parking,
entrances, and exits must be paved.    No adult
video signage allowed.
In February 1998, a Zoning Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of
Stallings visited Davis's video store, noting that the front area
of the store ("non-adult section") contained approximately 800 non-
adult  videos  on  the  shelves  and                                         82-250  videos  waiting  to  be
shelved.    The  back  area  of  the  store  ("adult  section")  contained
approximately                                                                882  adult  videos  and  about    180  adult  magazines;
another  "novelty  room"  in  this  adult  section  contained  five
different items.
On 24 April 1998, the Zoning Officer issued a violation notice




to Davis.    The cited violation was as follows:
You  were  issued  a  zoning  permit  for  a  video
store  with  an  adult  video  room  on  28  October
1997.    A  condition  on  the  permit  stated  that
the  majority  of  the  movies  must  not  be  of  an
adult nature.
Per  an  investigation,  I  determined  that  you
were   selling   adult   magazines   along   with
novelty  items.    This  qualifies  the  use  as  an
adult  use.     Therefore,  you  must  obtain  a
zoning permit for an [“]adult establishment[”]
or  remove  the  adult  magazines  and  novelty
items.                                                                      If  a  zoning  permit  for  an  adult
establishment is granted, then you must obtain
a business license for that use.
On 7 May 1998, Davis appealed from the notice of violation on
the  basis  that  his  video  store  did  not  qualify  as  an  "adult
establishment" under the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Stallings
("the Ordinance").    The Ordinance adopts the definition of "adult
establishment" from N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  14-202.10(2), which defines
the  term  as  "an  adult  bookstore,  adult  motion  picture  theatre,
adult  mini  motion  picture  theatre,  adult  live  entertainment
business,  or  massage  business  as  defined  in  this  section."    The
type   of   "adult   establishment"   relevant   here   is   an   "adult
bookstore."                                                                 N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                       §        14-202.10(1)  sets  forth  two
definitions  for  an  "adult  bookstore."     Specifically,  an  "adult
bookstore" is one:
a.  Which  receives  a  majority  of  its  gross
income during any calendar month from the
sale or rental of publications (including
books,   magazines,   other   periodicals,
videotapes,                                                                 compact                                 discs,   other
                                                                            photographic,    electronic,                     magnetic,
digital,  or  other  imaging  medium)  which
are  distinguished  or  characterized  by
their   emphasis   on   matter   depicting,
describing,   or   relating   to   specified
sexual activities or specified anatomical
areas, as defined in this section; or




b.   Having as a preponderance (either in terms
of weight and importance of the material
or   in   terms   of   greater   volume   of
materials) of its publications (including
books,   magazines,   other   periodicals,
videotapes,                                                                   compact                        discs,                             other
                                                                              photographic,    electronic,                                      magnetic,
digital,  or  other  imaging  medium)  which
are  distinguished  or  characterized  by
their   emphasis   on   matter   depicting,
describing,   or   relating   to   specific
sexual activities or specified anatomical
areas, as defined in this section.
In  addition,  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                              §                              14-202.10(9)  defines  "sexually
oriented  devices"  as,  "without  limitation[,]  any  artificial  or
simulated   specified   anatomical   area   or   other   device   or
paraphernalia  that  is  designed  principally  for  specified  sexual
activities but shall not mean any contraceptive device."
In  his  appeal  to  the  Board,  Davis  asserted  two  grounds  for
reversal of the Zoning Officer's determination:                               (1) his selling of
"sexually  oriented  devices"  should  not  factor  into  whether  his
business  was  an  "adult  bookstore"  since  such  devices  are  not
"publications, books, magazines, or other periodicals" under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-202.10(1)(a) or (b), and (2) the "preponderance" of
"publications"  sold  at  the  video  store  were  not  distinguished  or
characterized  by  their  emphasis  on  matter  related  to  specified
sexual activities or specified anatomical areas, as required under
G.S.  14-202.10(1)(b).
On  21 July 1998 and  18 August 1998, a hearing was held before
the  Town  of  Stallings  Board  of  Adjustment  ("the  Board").    At  the
hearing, the Zoning Officer presented evidence of items contained
in Davis's video store on his first visit, along with evidence of
additional items discovered on a second visit on 22 July 1998.   The




second  time,  the  Zoning  Officer  encountered  approximately                 1884
videos   and                                                                    300   comic   books   in   the   non-adult   section,   and
approximately                                                                   1665  videos,  300  magazines  and  books,  160  novelty
items,  and                                                                     80  CDS  in  the  adult  section.    At  this  hearing,  both
Davis  and  his  wife  invoked  their  Fifth  Amendment  right  against
self-incrimination and refused to testify.
The Board essentially concluded (1) that by displaying on the
premises of his video store items other than videos, Davis violated
the  zoning  permit  issued  to  him  on  28  October  1997,  and  (2)  that
because Davis and his wife refused to testify, they prevented the
Board from conducting a full and complete hearing of the relevant
evidence needed to determine the applicable issues, giving rise to
an  inference  that  his  video  store  constituted  an  unauthorized
"adult establishment."    In its mandate, the Board stated that the
zoning  permit  restricted  Davis  to  the  rental  or  sale  of  videos
only, the majority of which must not be adult pursuant to N.C. Gen.
Stat.                                                                           §                                                               14-202.10.    The  Board  also  mandated  that  Davis's  video
store must not constitute an "adult establishment" as defined under
the  Ordinance.    The  order  allowed  Davis  thirty  days  in  which  to
comply.
Davis filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Union
County Superior Court on  20 October  1998 and a writ of certiorari
was  issued  on  5  November  1998.    On  31  August  1999,  a  hearing  was
conducted  by  the  trial  court,  which  entered  a  judgment  affirming
the Board's decision.    Davis now appeals.
[1] When reviewing the decision of a board of adjustment, the
trial  court  sits  in  the  posture  of  an  appellate  court  and  is




responsible for the following:
(1)    Reviewing the record for errors of law,
(2)   Insuring that procedures specified by law
in both statute and ordinance are followed,
(3)                                                                             Insuring  that  appropriate  due  process
rights of a petitioner are protected including
the  right  to  offer  evidence,  cross-examine
witnesses, and inspect documents,
(4)    Insuring  that  decisions  of  town  boards
are   supported   by   competent,   material   and
substantial evidence in the whole record, and
(5)   Insuring that decisions are not arbitrary
and capricious.
In re Appeal of Willis, 129 N.C. App. 499, 500, 500 S.E.2d 723, 725
(1998).   If a petitioner contends the Board's decision was based on
an  error  of  law,  de  novo  review  is  proper.    JWL  Invs.,  Inc.  v.
Guilford County Bd. of Adjust., 133 N.C. App. 426,  429, 515 S.E.2d
715,  717, disc. review denied,  351 N.C.  357,  __ S.E.2d  __  (1999).
However,  if  a  petitioner  contends  the  Board's  decision  was  not
supported by the evidence or was arbitrary and capricious, then the
reviewing court must apply the "whole record" test.   Id.   The role
of appellate courts is to review the trial court's order for errors
of  law.    Willis,  129  N.C.  App.  at  502,  500  S.E.2d  at  726.    "The
process  has  been  described  as  a  two-fold  task:                           (1)  determining
whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review
and,  if  appropriate,                                                          (2)  deciding  whether  the  court  did  so
properly."    Id.
[2]  Accordingly,  we  first  decide  whether  the  trial  court
exercised the appropriate scope of review.    In this appeal, Davis
assigns as error the Board's conclusion that his video store was an
"adult  establishment"  based  on  his  refusal  to  testify.     This




presents a question of law warranting de novo review.   Id. at  501,
500 S.E.2d at 725.   We find the trial court applied the appropriate
standard of review; thus, we now determine whether the trial court
exercised de novo review properly.    Id.
[3]  The  constitutional  privilege  against  self-incrimination
assures  all  individuals  that  they  will  not  be  compelled  to  give
testimony which will tend to incriminate them or which will tend to
subject  them  to  fines,  penalties  or  forfeiture.     Cantwell  v.
Cantwell,                                                                       109  N.C.  App.   395,   397,   427  S.E.2d   129,   130   (1993).
Here,  Davis's  testimony  regarding  the  sale  or  rental  of  certain
items  could  subject  him  to  criminal  prosecution  under  N.C.  Gen.
Stat. § 14-202.11(a) if such testimony leads to the conclusion that
his video store is an "adult establishment."    Thus, Davis and his
wife could properly invoke the privilege at the hearing before the
Board.
[4]  Having  established  that  Davis  and  his  wife  properly
invoked the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, we
turn  to  whether  the  Board  could  use  their  assertion  of  that
privilege  to  infer  that  Davis  was  running  an  unauthorized  "adult
establishment."    It  is  well  established  that  a  trier  of  fact  may
infer  guilt  on  a  civil  party  who  has  the  opportunity  to  refute
damaging evidence but chooses not to.    McKillop v. Onslow County,
139  N.C.  App.  53,  63,  532  S.E.2d  594,  601  (2000).    The  finder  of
fact in a civil action may use a witness's invocation of his Fifth
Amendment  privilege  against  self-incrimination  to  infer  that  his
truthful testimony would have been unfavorable to him.    Fedoronko
v. American Defender Life Ins. Co.,  69 N.C. App.  655,  657-58,  318




S.E.2d  244,  246  (1984).    The  foregoing  principle  was  applied  in
Gray v. Hoover,  94 N.C. App.  724,  726,  381 S.E.2d  472,  473, disc.
review denied,  325 N.C.  545,  385 S.E.2d  498  (1989), an action for
divorce  that  included  a  charge  of  adultery.     The  evidence  of
adultery  consisted  of  plaintiff's  wife  going  into  a  condominium
with the defendant at night, turning out the lights inside, and not
exiting until daytime.   Id. at 729, 381 S.E.2d at 474-75.   At trial
the  defendant  refused  to  answer  questions  on  the  grounds  that  he
might incriminate himself.    Id.    The Court stated:
"Plaintiff's   charge   against   defendant   was
adultery;  if  the  evidence  of  so  serious  a
charge  was  not  true,  the  defendant  had  the
opportunity to refute it.    Whether the charge
was  true  or  not,  the  falsity  of  it  was
peculiarly within defendant's knowledge.    The
fact  that                                                                   [he]  did  not  refute  the  damaging
charge made by plaintiff, it may be that this
was  a  silent  admission  of  the  charge  made
against  [him]."
Id. at  729,  381 S.E.2d at  475  (quoting Warner v. Torrence,  2 N.C.
App.  384,  163  S.E.2d  90  (1968)).    The  rationale  underlying  this
principle has been stated as follows:
"The  privilege  of  the  witness  is  to  prevent
testimony which might be used against him in a
subsequent criminal suit, and not to keep out
probative  evidence  or  any  inferences  to  be
drawn from the claim of privilege which might
be relevant to the issues in the matter before
the  court.    So,  while  the  claim  of  privilege
may  not  be  used  against  defendant                                       [or  a
witness] in a subsequent criminal prosecution,
an  inference  that  his  testimony  would  have
been  unfavorable  to  him  is  available  to  his
opponent  in  a  civil  cause  in  which  defendant
[or a witness] pleads the privilege."
Fedoronko,                                                                   69  N.C.  App.  at                      657,   318  S.E.2d  at   246   (quoting   98
C.J.S. Witnesses  §  455, at  308  (1957)  (footnotes omitted)).
We  find  the  foregoing  cases  inferring  guilt  on  a  civil




defendant  who  refuses  to  refute  damaging  evidence  dispositive.
Here,  the  evidence  before  the  Board  revealed  a  relatively  small
disparity   between   the   number   of   adult   and   non-adult   items
qualifying as "publications" in Davis's video store  --  2045 adult
publications and 2184 non-adult publications.   This evidence gives
rise to the probability that a majority of Davis's gross income was
derived  from  the  sale  or  rental  of  these  adult  publications,  and
thus, fulfills the first definition of "adult bookstore" under G.S.
14-202.10(1)(a).    Given this evidence, Davis's refusal to attempt
to refute the Zoning Officer's evidence is tantamount to "a silent
admission of the charge made against him."    Gray,  94 N.C. App. at
729,  381 S.E.2d at  475  (citation omitted).    This silent admission
logically  gives  rise  to  an  inference  of  guilt.    In  Re  Estate  of
Trogdon,  330  N.C.  143,  152,  409  S.E.2d  897,  902  (1991).    It  was
therefore  proper  for  the  Board  to  infer  a  violation  from  his
refusal  to  testify  and  thus  to  conclude  that  his  video  store
qualified as an "adult bookstore" under G.S.  14-202.10(1).
In  light  of  the  foregoing,  we  conclude  the  trial  court
properly   exercised   its   scope   of   review   in   upholding   the
determination of the Board.
Affirmed.
Judges WYNN and HUNTER concur.

Download 99-1513-7.pdf

South Carolina Law