STROUD, Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction following a bench trial for first degree murder by starvation under North Carolina General Statute § 14-17(a) and negligent child abuse under North Carolina General Statute § 14-318.4(a4), both arising from the mistreatment and death of his four-year-old stepson, Malachi Golden. There was sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that defendant

intentionally starved his four-year-old stepson Malachi and that starvation was the proximate cause of his death. As to his conviction for negligent child abuse, there

STATE V. CHEEKS

Opinion of the Court

was no fatal variance between the evidence presented at trial and the indictment. After careful review of Defendant’s arguments and all of the evidence, we find no error in the trial court’s judgment. I. Procedural and Factual Background Defendant Thomas Allen Cheeks was charged with first degree murder, negligent child abuse resulting in serious injury, and intentional child abuse resulting in serious injury, all arising from the death of Malachi Golden. He waived jury trial, and a five-day bench trial was conducted starting on 23 October 2017 before the Superior Court, Gaston County. On 1 November 2017, the trial court entered verdicts finding defendant not guilty of intentional child abuse, guilty of negligent child abuse, and guilty of first degree murder by starving but not guilty of murder “with premeditation and deliberation where a deadly weapon is used,” felony murder, or murder by torture.^[1] Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court. The evidence showed that Malachi Golden was born on 15 November 2010. At the time of his death, Malachi lived with his mother, Tiffany Cheeks, his stepfather, Defendant, and his two younger half-sisters, both the biological children of Mrs. Cheeks and Defendant. Malachi’s biological father was never involved in his life. His 1Based upon its verdict of first degree murder by starving, the trial court noted that second degree murder was moot.

STATE V. CHEEKS

Opinion of the Court

mother began living with Defendant in 2012, and they were married on 1 November 2013. Malachi began having “infantile spasms” when he was about 4 months old, and Mrs. Cheeks took him to see his pediatrician, who referred Malachi to a pediatric neurologist, Dr. Robinett. Dr. Robinett determined he was suffering from seizures and prescribed an anti-epileptic medication, Zonisamide. Upon further testing, physicians determined Malachi had a chromosomal abnormality, a microdeletion in chromosome 22. They recommended additional testing to determine whether the abnormality was inherited and likely insignificant, or a new mutation that may be clinically significant, but Mrs. Cheeks never returned to have additional testing done. Mrs. Cheeks stopped taking Malachi to the pediatric neurologist in June 2013, one month after her first child with Defendant was born. Sometime in 2014, without consulting a physician, Mrs. Cheeks stopped giving Malachi his medication. Malachi had trouble walking and was referred to the Child Development Services Agency (CDSA), which began therapy services. With therapy, his fine motor skills improved, his walking improved, and he was learning to feed himself. At age 3, on 15 November 2013, he aged out of the CDSA therapy services in the home and began to receive therapy at a local elementary school, but Mrs. Cheeks often failed to take him to his therapy appointments because she “just didn’t feel like going” and

STATE V. CHEEKS

Opinion of the Court

stopped completely in December 2014, one month after the birth of her second child with Defendant. The therapists mentioned in the trial court’s findings of fact below had come to the home to provide services to Malachi’s younger sisters, not Malachi, since Mrs. Cheeks had stopped taking him to therapy appointments. 5 February 2015, was the last day a therapist saw Malachi in the home, although she was there to provide therapy for his sister. The therapist commented about how thin Malachi was becoming. The therapist returned to the home for appointments in April but did not see Malachi. After the April appointments, Mrs. Cheeks cancelled therapy for her daughter. At about 10:00 p.m. on 11 May 2015, Ms. Cheeks called 911 regarding Malachi. When EMS arrived, they found Malachi lying dead in an undecorated room. Malachi was extraordinarily emaciated. Although he was nearly five years old, he was wearing clothing sized for 24 months and 3T, and the clothes were hanging off of him. His bones protruded, his stomach and face were taunt, and his head disproportionately large for his body. The doctor that performed the autopsy estimated that Malachi had been lying on his back after death from a few hours to one or two days. Besides his obvious emaciation, Malachi had other injuries and signs of severe and protracted neglect. He had head injuries and pressure ulcers where his bones

STATE V. CHEEKS

Opinion of the Court

had laid against one another; injuries to his groin and genital area, including sores in various stages of healing, some beyond the point of septic infection. Specialist Justin Kirkland, crime scene investigator for the Gaston County Police Department, had investigated crime scenes for almost 10 years. He was one of the first investigators on the scene and took many of the photographs. Upon examining Malachi, he noted that Malachi had a large sore on his right groin area. When we turned him over there was -- I would call it large sores, but it was severe diaper rash as well on his bottom. He had large sores on his bottom, something I have never seen before on a child in a death investigation. The medical examiner also testified had never seen anything like Malachi’s pressure sores and extreme diaper rash in a child.^[2] Neither of the other children were visibly malnourished, and police found plenty of food in the home, in both the kitchen cabinets and refrigerator. After Malachi’s death, officers from the Gaston County Police Department interviewed both Defendant and Mrs. Cheeks several times regarding Malachi and the events surrounding his death. Defendant made several conflicting statements to police regarding Malachi’s death and his condition leading up to his death. Defendant was not working and was the primary caregiver for Malachi for at least two months before his death. On 11 May 2015, he initially told police he had fed Malachi 2These photographs are in our record, and, as the trial court put it, the “photographs of Malachi Golden speak more volumes than any words ever could.”

STATE V. CHEEKS

Opinion of the Court

Spaghettios but he had thrown up, and he had checked on him several times during the day he died. In the second interview, on 14 May 2015, he gave a different timeline of events and said he had fed Malachi a “Kid Cuisine,” a “grape-apple pouch[] squeeze food,” and water. His third and final interview was on 30 October 2015 by Detective Brienza. Detective Brienza received the original, unamended autopsy report on 15 October 2015.3 He then met with Defendant and Mrs. Cheeks again because the “inconsistencies were too great at this point based on the autopsy report.” He found inconsistencies in the medication Malachi should have been receiving for his seizure disorder (since Mrs. Cheeks and Defendant claimed his doctors had taken him off medication, but the medical records showed his physician had actually increased the dosage), in the percentages of caretaking responsibilities between Defendant and Mrs. Cheeks, the “huge discrepancy” as to the food Defendant had claimed to have given Malachi and what was found on the autopsy, and evidence of head injuries. At the third interview, Defendant “had a couple different versions of killing Malachi.” His first version was that “Malachi drowned because he gave him too much fluid while in the bath tub” and Malachi had been dead for two days before the 911 call. Detective Brienza noted that the autopsy did not indicate Malachi had drowned. Defendant then said he had put his hands around Malachi’s neck to keep him quiet. 3As discussed in detail below, the original autopsy report concluded Malachi had died from starvation and dehydration. The autopsy report was amended after the medical examiner reviewed Defendant’s third interview with Detective Brienza.

STATE V. CHEEKS

Opinion of the Court

He said Malachi’s moaning “frustrated him greatly.” His “method of operation” was to put his hands around Malachi’s throat and pick him up by his neck and choke him enough to quiet him. . . . Once Malachi would become limp, he would physically throw him in the Pack N Play from a distance, walk to the doorway, turn around to see if he was okay, if he was going to make any sound or movement. Once he saw that movement he then left. Defendant claimed he did this to Malachi “five times a week for the last two months” and had been “throwing him around, smacking him, whooping him almost on a daily basis[.]” Defendant said he was frustrated over Malachi’s moaning again on 11 May 2015, so after using his regular “method of operation” to quiet him, he also hit him several times on the head with a hard object. He said he watched Malachi “take his last few gasps of breath.” He claimed “he bathed Malachi after he was dead for a long period of time,” washing his hair and body as if he were alive, and then he put clothing and a new diaper on him and placed him in his bed with a blanket over him. Defendant testified at trial and gave yet another entirely different story of what happened prior to Malachi’s death. He testified that after Mrs. Cheeks left for work around noon, he changed Malachi’s diaper, applied diaper rash cream, and fed him lunch. He could not recall exactly what Malachi ate, but it was “normal food” such as “Kid Cuisine, Hungy-Man, hot dogs, chicken nuggets, french fries.” He also

STATE V. CHEEKS

Opinion of the Court

gave him juice and put him back in his playpen. He then went to take care of the other two children. Around 4:30 p.m., Malachi woke up and Defendant heard his normal moaning sounds. His diaper was dry, so he did not need to be changed, and he then fed Malachi some fruit snacks. He testified that Malachi “grabs as much as he can and stuffs them in the mouth” but most of them he would end up missing his mouth, so he would then give him more. He also fed him a Kid Cuisine, string cheese, and yogurt bites at about 4:30 p.m. After Malachi ate, Defendant testified he gave him a bath, changed his diaper, and put him back in his playpen. Defendant fed the two girls as well, and by 5:30 p.m. all three children were sleeping, and he went outside to smoke a cigarette. Defendant then came back inside and took a nap until about 7:30 p.m. He then checked on Malachi, changed his diaper, and fed him again, not a “whole meal” but string cheese and a Juicy Juice box. He then put Malachi back in his playpen and tended to the other children. Sometime around 8:00 p.m. he checked on Malachi again, and he appeared to be sleeping. He was not moaning, but Defendant could hear him breathing. He went outside to smoke again, and Mrs. Cheeks got home around 10:00 p.m. She went to check on Malachi and then called for Defendant, saying, “There is something wrong with Malachi. I think he is dead.” Defendant told her, “There is no way because I just checked on him hours before.” Defendant said he took Malachi out of the playpen and laid him on the floor while Mrs. Cheeks called 911. The 911 operator told them to administer CPR, so he tried

STATE V. CHEEKS

Opinion of the Court

to administer CPR but did not want to use too much pressure, since he had only been trained to do CPR on adults when he was in the military. Defendant testified at trial his statements to Detective Brienza were lies and he had said what he did because “he told me we have this autopsy” but did not tell him what the autopsy said. He said he drowned Malachi but Detective Brienza said that was a lie based on the autopsy so Defendant “gave him another option saying I hit him in the head.” Defendant denied that he had ever choked Malachi or thrown him into the playpen to make him be quiet. Defendant claimed he told Detective Brienza the things he did because “I was going to take the blame” to protect Mrs. Cheeks. In response to the photographs of Malachi, Defendant testified, “I can’t explain that. I know I fed my son.” He testified that his ribs did not look like they did in the photographs, and his diaper rash was just regular diaper rash. Mrs. Cheeks also gave several different versions of events. In her initial statement, she claimed she did not know what had happened to Malachi and neither she nor Defendant realized he was dead until she found him and called 911. She then gave a statement implicating Defendant on 2 November 2015, regarding his abuse of Malachi and stating that she knew Defendant had killed Malachi. She said she already knew Malachi was dead before she called 911, and she did not perform CPR because she did not know how. Based upon her statement implicating Defendant, she entered into a plea arrangement with the State and plead guilty to a reduced

STATE V. CHEEKS

Opinion of the Court

charge of accessory after the fact of first degree murder and negligent child abuse resulting in serious injury. But at trial, she recanted her prior statements against Defendant and agreed that she “pretty much would do anything” for Defendant “to be found not guilty.”4 The trial court entered an order with findings of fact, and Defendant does not challenge the findings of fact as unsupported by the record, so we will quote the trial court’s order as to the facts5 of this case: 1. The deceased victim was Malachi Golden, a four-year-old boy. ^[2]. Malachi Golden’s caregivers were his mother, Tiffany Cheeks, and Defendant. ^[3]. Tiffany Cheeks and Defendant married in November of 2013. 4. Defendant, Tiffany Cheeks, Malachi Golden and the two younger female half-siblings lived in an apartment in High Shoals. 5. Malachi Golden’s younger half-siblings were the children of Defendant and Tiffany Cheeks. ^[4] Mrs. Cheeks had made statements regarding Malachi’s death to many people since his death, but stated for the first time in her trial testimony that all of her prior statements were false: “Q. At what point between the last time we talked and today did you decide you were going to come in here and say that what you told in the past to me, people in the DA’s office, Detective Brienza, DSS workers, that you were going to come in here and say that was all just a lie. A. Today.” 5 Because several of the trial court’s conclusions of law are actually findings of fact, we have quoted those as well. See State v. Johnson, 246 N.C. App. 677, 683, 783 S.E.2d 753, 758 (2016) (“[W]e do not base our review of findings of fact and conclusions of law on the label in the order, but rather, on the substance of the finding or conclusion.”). - 10 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court 6. Malachi Golden died on May 11, 2015. 7. Malachi was discovered laying on the floor in a room that appeared more like a storage room than a child’s bedroom with materials piled in the comers and along the walls. 8. Inside the room was a “Pack and Play” a portable playpen for infants. 9. Malachi Golden spent the majority of the time during the last five months of his life in the “Pack and Play.” 10. At the time of death, Malachi Golden had a plastic appearance with sunken eyes, collarbones, protruding spine, protruding joints and protruding ribs. 11. At the time of death, Malachi Golden had very little body fat or muscle tissue. 12. At the time of death, Malachi Golden’s internal organs were about half the average size for a four-year-old boy. 13. Dehydration caused the abnormal size of the internal organs. 14. The dehydration occurred over several weeks. I5. The autopsy revealed that Malachi Golden was malnourished and dehydrated. 16. At the time of death, Malachi Golden weighed 19 pounds compared to the average weight of a [sic] 38-40 pounds for a four-year-old boy. 17. At the time of death, Malachi Golden’s skin exhibited - 11 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court “tenting” a sign of acute dehydration.6 18. At the time of death, Malachi Golden had a very wasted appearance. 19. At the time of death, Malachi Golden’s skin also exhibited acute wrinkling in the armpit and hip joint areas which is a sign of severe malnutrition. 20. Malachi Golden suffered acute diaper rash with extensive inflammation on his buttocks and groin. 21. Some of the ulcers, or wounds, caused by the diaper rash were healing while others were open sores that exhibited bleeding. 22. Malachi Golden suffered from the acute diaper rash for an extended period without proper treatment. 23. Staying in soiled diapers for long periods of time caused the diaper rash. 24. Malachi Golden also suffered from bed sores on his legs and knees from his lying in the “Pack and Play” for extensive periods of time without being moved or given proper attention. 25. Doctors diagnosed Malachi Golden with a genetic disorder and seizure disorder shortly after birth. 26. The seizures consisted of Malachi Golden losing control of his body and dropping to the ground. 6 We note that the word “acute” has an ordinary meaning which is different from its medical definition. In the ordinary sense, acute means “very serious; critical; crucial.” Webster’s New World College Dictionary (5th ed. 2014). In the medical sense, acute means “severe but of short duration; not chronic: said of some diseases.” Id. In the findings, the trial court was clearly using “acute” in the ordinary sense and not in the medical sense. The evidence showed the conditions described as “acute” in the findings were serious, but all of the medical evidence characterized them as both serious (in the ordinary sense) and chronic (in the medical sense). - 12 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court 27. Seizures would only last for a few seconds to a few minutes. 28. There was no danger that the seizures would cause death in and of themselves. 29. For Malachi Golden’s safety, he wore a helmet to protect his head when he dropped to the ground during a seizure. 30. Malachi Golden did not wear the helmet when he was in his “Pack and Play.” 31. Malachi Golden took the prescribed medication called Zonegram Zonisamide for his seizures. 32. Malachi Golden did well on medication and responded positively to therapy. 33. With medication and therapy, Malachi Golden began walking some and was feeding himself with supervision. 34. Malachi Golden’s walking improved from a few feet to the length of the courtroom by the time the caregivers stopped allowing the child to have therapy in December of 20l4. 35. The caregivers ceased Malachi Golden’s medication, medical care and therapy sessions at, or near, December of 2014. 36. The caregivers ceased all medication, medical care, and therapy sessions without consulting Malachi Golden’s physicians. 37. For the last few months of his life, Malachi Golden was cloistered from all adults except Tiffany Cheeks and Defendant. - 13 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court 38. During this period, Defendant became the primary caregiver for Malachi Golden and provided up to 80 percent of the child’s care. 39. Defendant spent most of his time sleeping, watching movies or playing video games. 40. Defendant rarely fed Malachi Golden more than one time a day. 41. Neither Defendant nor Ms. Tiffany Cheeks ever took Malachi Golden to the doctor because of the weight loss. 42. Ms. Tiffany Cheeks was afraid that one day Defendant would hurt her. 43. Malachi Golden was a “chubby” child before October 2013. 44. In December of 20l4, Malachi Golden was hungry when he met with the therapist at the school. 45. In January of 20l5, the home therapist working with Malachi Golden’s sibling commented to Ms. Tiffany Cheeks that the [sic] Malachi Golden appeared thin. 46. Ms. Tiffany Cheeks told the therapist that the doctor was taking care of it, when in fact Malachi had not seen a doctor for a long time. 47. Ms. Tiffany Cheeks canceled the sibling’s appointments with the therapist shortly after the above conversation during the January 2015 visit. 48. The caregivers had transportation to get Malachi Golden to a doctor’s office. 49. Both Defendant and Ms. Tiffany Cheeks recanted their interviews with the police where they admitted - 14 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court wrongdoing regarding the care of Malachi Golden. 50. Defendant contradicted himself several times on the stand during his testimony during the trial. Based upon the above FINDINGS OF FACT, the Court concludes as a MATTER OF LAW that: 1. Dehydration causes the reduced size of internal organs. ^[2]. “Tenting” demonstrates acute dehydration. ^[3]. Acute wrinkling in the armpit and hip joint areas demonstrates severe malnutrition. ^[4]. Staying in soiled diapers for long periods of time causes the diaper rash. 5. Acute diaper rash without proper treatment over an extended period will cause ulcers or wounds. 6. Defendant was a person providing care and supervision for Malachi Golden. 7. Defendant committed a grossly wanton negligent omission with reckless disregard for the safety of Malachi Golden by: a. Allowing the child to remain in soiled diapers until acute diaper rash formed on the groin and bottom of Malachi Golden which included open sores and ulcers; and b. Keeping the child in a playpen for so long of period that bed sores formed on Malachi Golden’s legs and knees; 8. The above sub-paragraphs caused the child extreme pain and with reckless disregard for human life. - 15 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court 9. To starve someone is to “kill with hunger.” 10. A reasonably careful and prudent person could foresee that failing to provide for a child’s nutritional needs would cause death. 11. By feeding Malachi Golden typically only once a day and watching the child waste away to skin and bones, the Defendant intentionally starved the four-year old boy. 12. Malachi Golden perished from the lack of food and life- sustaining liquids. 13.Defendant’s starving Malachi Golden was the proximate cause of the child's death. 14. Defendant’s failure to take any action to seek medical help, through any means possible, for Malachi Golden as the child wasted away from lack of nutrients needed for the maintenance of life was the commission of a homicide. The trial court then entered a verdict based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows: 1. Negligent Child Abuse - Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury GUILTY 2. Child Abuse - Inflicting Serious Bodily Injury NOT GUILTY 3. First Degree Murder with Premeditation and Deliberation Where a Deadly Weapon is Used NOT GUILTY - 16 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court 4. First Degree Murder Committed in Perpetration of a Felony NOT GUILTY 5. First Degree Murder by Torture NOT GUILTY 6. First Degree Murder by Starving GUILTY SECOND DEGREE MURDER IS MOOT The trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without parole for first degree murder and consolidated the negligent child abuse conviction into this sentence. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court. II. Trial Procedure We begin by addressing the trial court’s procedure in the case since no prior appellate case addresses the hybrid procedure used by the trial court. Because of this unusual procedure, the state makes various arguments regarding waiver of some issues and both parties make arguments based upon different standards of review for various issues, based upon either a bench trial or jury trial. Defendant waived trial by jury and elected to have a bench trial under North Carolina General Statute § 15A-1201(b). In a criminal bench trial, the trial court is not required to set forth the law it will follow in the form of jury instructions or to - 17 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court may enter a general verdict, just as a jury would in a jury trial. Bench trials differ from jury trials since there are no jury instructions and no verdict sheet to show exactly what the trial court considered, but we also presume that the trial court knows and follows the applicable law unless an appellant shows otherwise. We follow this presumption in many contexts. For example, in a jury trial, if the trial court allows the jury to hear inadmissible evidence, this may be reason for reversal and a new trial, if such errors were material and prejudicial. But in a bench trial, we presume the trial court ignored any inadmissible evidence unless the defendant can show otherwise. We presume the trial court has followed “basic rules of procedure” in bench trials. State v. Jones, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 816 S.E.2d 921, 924-25 (2018) (citations omitted). In a civil bench trial, the trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its ruling, as required by North Carolina General Statute § 1A-A, Rule 52. On appeal, the appellant must challenge specific findings of fact as unsupported by the evidence. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6). Where a trial court makes findings of fact after a bench trial, appellate review is based upon those findings, and not upon potential findings the trial court could have made based upon the evidence but did not. But in a criminal jury trial, there is no requirement for findings of fact, just a general jury verdict, so a defendant who appeals may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict; there are no findings of fact to consider - 18 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court on appeal. On appeal in a criminal jury trial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and may draw any reasonable inferences based upon that evidence to determine if the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. State v. Harris, 361 N.C. 400, 404, 646 S.E.2d 526, 529 (2007). Here, the trial court elected to follow a hybrid procedure by adopting “jury instructions” setting forth the law it would apply to the case, as required in a jury trial, but also made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the verdict, as is typical in a civil bench trial. The trial court explained why it requested the parties to request jury instructions as they would in a jury trial: The reason I am asking for those patterned jury instructions. All I need is the substantive ones for the charges because, and please understand that having presided over bench trials for higher felonies before as well as discussing how to handle a bench trial with other superior court judges across the state that have also held them, it is our feeling that basically we operate the same as if there were 12 people in that box. Therefore, when it comes time for me to deliberate, we will actually have a conference over those three substantive charges. I will not go through the preliminary ones, the function of the jury and all that, but I do need the substantive charges, and that way we can all have a discussion so we know what the State has met on and what has not, and also, you all will know what I am deliberating with myself about. Also, throughout the trial, if we are moving from finder of fact to judge of law, I will place that on the record so the appellate courts will have the opportunity to know which role I was standing in when I was making certain comments. .... . . .We will actually have a conference just like we would if - 19 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court there was a jury here as to what the wording would be, and basically, it will be read or presented into the record as a document.7 During the conference regarding the jury instructions, the trial court also informed counsel it would not enter a general verdict as would be done by a jury, but instead the trial court would enter a detailed order with findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a verdict: THE COURT: . . .What you will find in the bench trial, the fact finder will produce a set of findings of fact and conclusions, and finally, its decision so that the appellate courts will know what facts it took. . . . MR. RATCHFORD: Your Honor, if I may, if I can go back to your statement. Is that going to be delineated on the verdict sheet? THE COURT: Well, there is not really a verdict sheet as such. There will be a judgment. In other words, each of the charges will be found to be either guilty or not guilty at the end of the judgment. It will have the equivalence of the verdict sheets, but it is going to be all in one document. You will have the findings of fact that I used and conclusions of law that I made and then my verdict. MR. RATCHFORD: So I am trying to think through this. As findings of fact as a trier of the fact, would that be delineated out such as the medicine or the lack of nutrition? THE COURT: Or strangulation or hitting on the head. 7 Instead of reading the instructions into the record, the trial court included in the record Court’s Exhibit 1, which is a copy of the jury instructions as modified by the trial court during the charge conference. Both parties agreed there was no need for the trial court to read the instructions aloud to itself in open court. - 20 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court MR. RATCHFORD: Thank you. THE COURT: The judgment part of it, instead of having like, for instance, you would normally have a verdict sheet for first degree murder and then it would have guilty not guilty. It will have first degree murder based on whatever the elements are and so forth that are found. That would also cover whether it is a B1 or B2 when I am finding in that. It will be stated out so that Court of Appeals knows which one I was considering based on the findings of fact. After further discussion of the process and order, which would take the place of a verdict sheet, counsel for defendant stated: MR. RATCHFORD: I think what Ms. Hamlin and I are thinking, we are trying to still make this a jury trial. I think what your Honor is looking at doing basically negate[s] the necessity of a verdict sheet. THE COURT: I will be quite honest with you, having the record overloaded gives the Court of Appeals much more of an understanding of what we were doing here. MS. HAMLIN: I guess the one question -- and I am fine with whatever Mr. Ratchford -- if he wants to have these verdict sheets. Sometimes in other cases I have had we have submitted on say two, P & D, specific intent, and then felony murder say. When we submit those, there is situations where they find them guilty on both. Does that make sense? That’s what I was wondering. When you go down you are going to do each? THE COURT: Anything I find the individual guilty of will be completely. - 21 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court We appreciate the trial court’s attention to detail and effort to provide this Court with a full understanding of the law applied and the facts it determined to be true. Charges of murder by starvation are rare; this is an unusual case, and the trial court handled it carefully. The additional procedural steps used by the trial court are fully within the trial court’s discretion, but we note they are not required by the North Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure or Chapter 15A, Article 73 of North Carolina’s General Statutes. III. Standard of Review Here, because the trial court made detailed findings of fact, our manner of review of Defendant’s challenge to sufficiency of the evidence differs somewhat from most criminal cases. We will review the trial court’s order based upon the standards of review as set forth for findings of fact in criminal cases regarding motions to suppress and motions for a new trial, since we have been unable to find any cases addressing review of an order with findings of fact in a criminal bench trial. Findings of fact are binding and are conclusive on appeal when they are supported by competent evidence. The findings of fact must support and justify the conclusion of law. State v. Saults, 299 N.C. 319, 322, 261 S.E.2d 839, 840-41 (1980) (citations omitted). Although there may be evidence which would support different findings of fact, if the trial court’s findings are supported by competent evidence, they are binding on appeal. See State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 60, 301 S.E.2d 335, 344 (1983) (“[T]he - 22 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal, notwithstanding the fact that there was evidence from which a different conclusion could have been reached.” (citing State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E.2d 1 (1966))). “The trial court’s conclusions of law, however, are reviewable de novo.” State v. Hyatt, 355 N.C. 642, 653, 566 S.E.2d 61, 69 (2002)). Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, as is typical in a criminal jury trial. We review the trial court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence de novo: A trial court, on a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, “must determine only whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged and of the defendant being the perpetrator of the offense.” “Whether evidence presented constitutes substantial evidence is a question of law for the court” and is reviewed de novo. “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence, “we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” “Any contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal.” State v. Glisson, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 796 S.E.2d 124, 127-28 (2017) (citations omitted). IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Verdict of Murder by Starvation A. Murder by Starving - 23 - STATE V. CHEEKS Opinion of the Court