State v. Harris

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Harris

372 S.E.2d 336, 91 N.C. App. 526, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 819

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 4, 1988

DocketNo. 8826SC183

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 372 S.E.2d 336 (State v. Harris) 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. Harris, 372 S.E.2d 336, 91 N.C. App. 526, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 819 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Indicted and tried for armed robbery in violation of G.S. 14-87 defendant was convicted of common law robbery as a lesser included offense. Relying upon the reasoning of our Supreme Court in State v. Hurst, 320 N.C. 589, 359 S.E. 2d 776 (1987), where it was ruled that felonious larceny is not a lesser included offense of armed robbery, defendant’s only contention here is that common law robbery is not a lesser included offense of armed robbery and the court erred in charging the jury and in accepting a verdict thereon. But since Hurst was overruled by State v. White, 322 N.C. 506, 369 S.E. 2d 813 (1988), in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in State v. Joyner, 312 N.C. 779, 324 S.E. 2d 841 (1985) and other cases that common law robbery is a lesser included offense of armed robbery, defendant’s contention must be and is overruled.

No error.

Judges Eagles and Parker concur.

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

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Indicted and tried for armed robbery in violation of G.S. 14-87 defendant was convicted of common law robbery as a lesser included offense. Relying upon the reasoning of our Supreme Court in State v. Hurst, 320 N.C. 589, 359 S.E. 2d 776 (1987), where it was ruled that felonious larceny is not a lesser included offense of armed robbery, defendant’s only contention here is that common law robbery is not a lesser included offense of armed robbery and the court erred in charging the jury and in accepting a verdict thereon. But since Hurst was overruled by State v. White, 322 N.C. 506, 369 S.E. 2d 813 (1988), in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in State v. Joyner, 312 N.C. 779, 324 S.E. 2d 841 (1985) and other cases that common law robbery is a lesser included offense of armed robbery, defendant’s contention must be and is overruled.

No error.

Judges Eagles and Parker concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 S.E.2d 336, 91 N.C. App. 526, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harris-ncctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack