State v. Malloy

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Malloy

280 S.E.2d 640, 53 N.C. App. 369, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2594

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedAugust 4, 1981

DocketNo. 8116SC8

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 S.E.2d 640 (State v. Malloy) 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. Malloy, 280 S.E.2d 640, 53 N.C. App. 369, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2594 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

WHICHARD, Judge.

The sole issue presented is whether the not guilty verdict on the assault charge barred subsequent prosecution of the robbery charge on grounds of double jeopardy. It did not.

If each of two criminal offenses, as a matter of law, requires proof of some fact, proof of which fact is not required for conviction of the other offense, the two offenses are not the same and a former jeopardy with reference to the one does not bar a subsequent prosecution for the other.

State v. Overman, 269 N.C. 453, 465, 153 S.E. 2d 44, 54 (1967). Conviction of misdemeanor assault requires proof of infliction of or attempt to inflict serious injury, G.S. 14-33(b)(1), while conviction of common law robbery does not. Conviction of common law robbery requires proof that property was taken from another against his will by violence or putting him in fear, State v. Black, 286 N.C. 191, 209 S.E. 2d 458 (1974), while conviction of misdemeanor assault does not. Thus, each offense for which defendant was tried required proof of a fact not required for conviction of the other; and acquittal on the assault charge did not bar prosecution for the robbery.

No error.

Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge WEBB concur.

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

WHICHARD, Judge.

The sole issue presented is whether the not guilty verdict on the assault charge barred subsequent prosecution of the robbery charge on grounds of double jeopardy. It did not.

If each of two criminal offenses, as a matter of law, requires proof of some fact, proof of which fact is not required for conviction of the other offense, the two offenses are not the same and a former jeopardy with reference to the one does not bar a subsequent prosecution for the other.

State v. Overman, 269 N.C. 453, 465, 153 S.E. 2d 44, 54 (1967). Conviction of misdemeanor assault requires proof of infliction of or attempt to inflict serious injury, G.S. 14-33(b)(1), while conviction of common law robbery does not. Conviction of common law robbery requires proof that property was taken from another against his will by violence or putting him in fear, State v. Black, 286 N.C. 191, 209 S.E. 2d 458 (1974), while conviction of misdemeanor assault does not. Thus, each offense for which defendant was tried required proof of a fact not required for conviction of the other; and acquittal on the assault charge did not bar prosecution for the robbery.

No error.

Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge WEBB concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 S.E.2d 640, 53 N.C. App. 369, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-malloy-ncctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack