State v. Perry

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Perry

248 S.E.2d 755, 38 N.C. App. 735, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2319

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 21, 1978

Docket788SC560

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 248 S.E.2d 755 (State v. Perry) 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. Perry, 248 S.E.2d 755, 38 N.C. App. 735, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2319 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

The sole question on this appeal is whether the court erred in failing to charge the jury, as requested, on misdemeanor larceny as a lesser included offense, and to submit it as a possible verdict.

The defendant was found guilty of common law robbery, which is defined as “the felonious taking of goods or money from the person or presence of another by means of force or intimidation.” 77 C.J.S., Robbery § 1, p. 446. He requested an instruction *737 on misdemeanor larceny, apparently on the basis that the property involved was worth less than $200, pursuant to G.S. 14-72(a). “[A] defendant is entitled to have all lesser degrees of offenses supported by the evidence submitted to the jury as possible alternate verdicts.” State v. Palmer, 293 N.C. 633, 643-44, 239 S.E. 2d 406, 413 (1977).

According to the State’s evidence, the defendant took the money from the person of Jerry Crawford, which would bring G.S. 14-72(b)(1) into play and make an instruction on misdemeanor larceny unnecessary. G.S. 14-72(b)(1) provides that “[t]he crime of larceny is a felony, without regard to the value of the property in question, if the larceny is . . . from the person. . . .” However, defendant testified that on previous occasions he and Jerry Crawford had discussions about stealing the money that Crawford collected at the service station. According to defendant, about three weeks before the robbery, Crawford had said, “Well, you come by one night and I’ll let you have the money and I’ll tell the people, the company, that I was robbed.” Defendant’s testimony presents evidence from which the jury might infer that he and Crawford acted in collusion in taking the money from the Kayo station, in which case the larceny would not be “from the person.” Thus, there was evidence of misdemeanor larceny, a lesser offense, and the failure to submit this issue for the jury’s consideration entitles defendant to a

New trial.

Judges CLARK and ERWIN concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

The sole question on this appeal is whether the court erred in failing to charge the jury, as requested, on misdemeanor larceny as a lesser included offense, and to submit it as a possible verdict.

The defendant was found guilty of common law robbery, which is defined as “the felonious taking of goods or money from the person or presence of another by means of force or intimidation.” 77 C.J.S., Robbery § 1, p. 446. He requested an instruction *737 on misdemeanor larceny, apparently on the basis that the property involved was worth less than $200, pursuant to G.S. 14-72(a). “[A] defendant is entitled to have all lesser degrees of offenses supported by the evidence submitted to the jury as possible alternate verdicts.” State v. Palmer, 293 N.C. 633, 643-44, 239 S.E. 2d 406, 413 (1977).

According to the State’s evidence, the defendant took the money from the person of Jerry Crawford, which would bring G.S. 14-72(b)(1) into play and make an instruction on misdemeanor larceny unnecessary. G.S. 14-72(b)(1) provides that “[t]he crime of larceny is a felony, without regard to the value of the property in question, if the larceny is . . . from the person. . . .” However, defendant testified that on previous occasions he and Jerry Crawford had discussions about stealing the money that Crawford collected at the service station. According to defendant, about three weeks before the robbery, Crawford had said, “Well, you come by one night and I’ll let you have the money and I’ll tell the people, the company, that I was robbed.” Defendant’s testimony presents evidence from which the jury might infer that he and Crawford acted in collusion in taking the money from the Kayo station, in which case the larceny would not be “from the person.” Thus, there was evidence of misdemeanor larceny, a lesser offense, and the failure to submit this issue for the jury’s consideration entitles defendant to a

New trial.

Judges CLARK and ERWIN concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.E.2d 755, 38 N.C. App. 735, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perry-ncctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack