Findings in the Bullock-McClure dispute

North Carolina prosecutor, Reed Hunt, wrote to Historic City News today that there is insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution of St Johns County commissioner Bill McClure.

McClure returned to Charlotte, in Mecklenburg County, where his former business partner had filed a complaint against him; alleging he had taken $500 out a bank that they once shared, and used the money to pay one of his credit cards.

The prosecutor’s findings appear in the attached copy of the order of dismissal filed in the District General Court of Justice.

The defendant and victim in this case had a prior business and dating relationship going back several years.

In 2013, they dissolved the business relationship and split up the business. Despite that, their dating relationship continued off and on until near the time of this incident.

As part of the dissolution of their business relationship, all bank accounts, including the one at issue here, were to be under the sole control of the victim.

According to Wells Fargo records as well as information provided by the defendant’s attorney, it appears that the defendant is still listed on this account, and that the victim was aware of this fact at the time she contacted police.

On 3/15/15 the defendant made a $500 payment from the Wells Fargo business account to Capital One to make a personal credit card payment.

This payment caused an overdraft in the Wells Fargo account that came to the attention of the victim. She immediately contacted the defendant, asking him why he made a payment from the Wells Fargo account to which he was not supposed to have access.

There were several email exchanges between the defendant and victim, which were provided to the State by the defendant’s attorney, which indicate the defendant made the payment from the Wells Fargo account in error.

Over the next couple of days, the defendant tried -unsuccessfully – to have the payment stopped and/or money placed back into the Wells Fargo account equal to the amount of the apparent erroneous payment.

These initial attempts by the defendant were not successful, but eventually, the money was returned to the account.

It appears that the transaction that is the subject of these charges was done in error and restitution has been made to the victim.

Although the defendant has no interest in the business to which the Wells Fargo account is connected, he does appear to still be connected to the account.

As such, it is not clear that a crime has been committed.

Even assuming that a crime was committed, there is sufficient evidence that this was a mistake to the point that the State believes it could never convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted intentionally, which is required for this crime.

Therefore dismissal of the charges is necessary.