State v. Gordon

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Gordon

215 S.E.2d 800, 26 N.C. App. 312, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2034

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 18, 1975

DocketNo. 7528SC184

StatusPublished

This text of 215 S.E.2d 800 (State v. Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Gordon, 215 S.E.2d 800, 26 N.C. App. 312, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2034 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

BROGK, Chief Judge.

Defendant argues that it was error to allow the prosecuting witness to testify about the acts of violence without first [314]*314fully establishing the identity of the perpetrator. This-argument is feckless. Before describing what took place, the prosecuting witness identified defendant as the person who flagged him down. In any event the order of proof is in the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Franks, 262 N.C. 94, 136 S.E. 2d 623 (1964). No abuse of discretion has been shown.

Defendant next argues that the evidence does not support a conviction of kidnapping. He cites State v. Knight, 248 N.C. 384, 103 S.E. 2d 452 (1958). In Knight the defendant dragged his victim into the woods for the purpose of blotting out the evidence of the homicide. In this case defendant carried the victim to the apartment for the purpose of committing the offenses of robbery and assault. Defendant also relies on State v. Roberts, 286 N.C. 265, 210 S.E. 2d 396 (1974). In Roberts it was held that where the victim was pulled a distance of only eighty to ninety feet, the requirement of “carrying away” was not satisfied so as to support a conviction of kidnapping. In the present case the distance the victim was carried was not shown, but there is no contention that the victim was not carried away from the immediate vicinity of the ramp from Patton Avenue to the expressway where the original assault upon him was committed. This assignment of error is overruled.

Defendant argues that the charge of common law robbery should have been dismissed. The evidence is sufficient to show that defendant was present and aiding and abetting in the robbery of the victim. This assignment of error is overruled.

No error.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BROGK, Chief Judge.

Defendant argues that it was error to allow the prosecuting witness to testify about the acts of violence without first [314]*314fully establishing the identity of the perpetrator. This-argument is feckless. Before describing what took place, the prosecuting witness identified defendant as the person who flagged him down. In any event the order of proof is in the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Franks, 262 N.C. 94, 136 S.E. 2d 623 (1964). No abuse of discretion has been shown.

Defendant next argues that the evidence does not support a conviction of kidnapping. He cites State v. Knight, 248 N.C. 384, 103 S.E. 2d 452 (1958). In Knight the defendant dragged his victim into the woods for the purpose of blotting out the evidence of the homicide. In this case defendant carried the victim to the apartment for the purpose of committing the offenses of robbery and assault. Defendant also relies on State v. Roberts, 286 N.C. 265, 210 S.E. 2d 396 (1974). In Roberts it was held that where the victim was pulled a distance of only eighty to ninety feet, the requirement of “carrying away” was not satisfied so as to support a conviction of kidnapping. In the present case the distance the victim was carried was not shown, but there is no contention that the victim was not carried away from the immediate vicinity of the ramp from Patton Avenue to the expressway where the original assault upon him was committed. This assignment of error is overruled.

Defendant argues that the charge of common law robbery should have been dismissed. The evidence is sufficient to show that defendant was present and aiding and abetting in the robbery of the victim. This assignment of error is overruled.

No error.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 S.E.2d 800, 26 N.C. App. 312, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gordon-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack