State v. Coats, 32
| Decision Date | 07 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 32,32 |
| Citation | 301 N.C. 216,270 S.E.2d 422 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Reuben Isaac COATS. |
Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., Dennis P. Myers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.
Daniel T. Perry, III, Fayetteville, for defendant-appellant.
The trial judge submitted two, and only two, permissible verdicts, viz: guilty of armed robbery as charged or not guilty. Defendant's first assignment of error is based on the contention that the court erred in failing to submit common law robbery as a permissible verdict. The Court of Appeals found no merit in this assignment and neither do we.
State v. Lee, 282 N.C. 566, 569-70, 193 S.E.2d 705, 707 (1973) (citations omitted); accord, State v. Carnes, 279 N.C. 549, 184 S.E.2d 235 (1971).
In the instant case, Smith testified that he saw the barrel, handles and cylinder of a silver-colored heavy gun. The gun was pointed at Smith by Hoot when the robbery commenced, and its persuasive influence was still present when defendant removed Smith's watch and wallet. Thus the State's evidence shows an armed robbery as charged in the bill of indictment. The mere fact that defendant swore he did not see a weapon is of insufficient probative value to warrant or require the submission to the jury of the lesser included offense of common law robbery. Compare State v. Thompson, 297 N.C. 285, 254 S.E.2d 526 (1979). His statement to that effect is not in conflict with the State's evidence. He explained why he could not see the gun, saying, Obviously, an instruction on common law robbery was not required. Defendant's testimony that he did not participate in the robbery and did not see a gun constitutes no evidence of his guilt of common law robbery. Defendant's first assignment of error is overruled.
Defendant contends the verdict of the jury was not unanimous and the court erred in accepting it. This constitutes his second assignment of error.
When the verdict was returned in open court, defendant requested that the jurors be polled and this was done. During that inquiry, the following colloquy occurred:
Defendant argues that the quoted colloquy does not establish affirmatively that each juror assented to the verdict announced earlier by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...does not depend upon knowledge of the principal's weapon. Accord Commonwealth v. Yeager, 599 S.W.2d 458 (Ky.1980); State v. Coats, 301 N.C. 216, 270 S.E.2d 422 (1980). The court apparently found this conclusion to be compelled by this court's decision in State v. McKim, 98 Wash.2d 111, 653 ......
-
State v. Peacock
...by the use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon whereby the life of a person is endangered or threatened. State v. Coats, 301 N.C. 216, 270 S.E.2d 422 (1980); State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978). The use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon is not an essential element ......
-
State v. Willis
...cert. denied, 451 U.S. 970, 101 S.Ct. 2048, 68 L.Ed.2d 349 (1981); State v. Coats, 46 N.C.App. 615, 275 S.E.2d 486, affirmed, 301 N.C. 216, 270 S.E.2d 422 (1980). The judge's charge on circumstantial evidence is the fourth question presented for review. Although the judge did instruct the j......
-
State v. Summerlin, 898SC428
...on a lesser included offense when the defendant's evidence merely tends to show that he committed no crime at all. State v. Coats, 301 N.C. 216, 270 S.E.2d 422 (1980). The determinative factor of whether the trial court is to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense is the presence ......