State v. Hill, 272--W

• Decision Date: 12 January 1968
• Docket Number: No. 272--W,272--W
• Citation: 272 N.C. 439,158 S.E.2d 329
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Paul David HILL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 329

158 S.E.2d 329

272 N.C. 439

STATE of North Carolina v. Paul David HILL.

No. 272--W.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 12, 1968.

Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Asst. Atty. Gen. B. A. Harrell, for the State.

Charles B. Merryman, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant appellant.

LAKE, Justice.

In Case No. 50--249B, the indictment charges that the defendant 'unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously did, by the use of an acetylene torch force open a Herring Hall-Marvin safe, of Lee A. Folgers, Incorporated, a corporation, Used for storing chattels, money and other valuables.' (Emphasis added.) As to this safe, the evidence for the State was:

'Not anything was kept in that safe on June 13th and 14th of 1967. Not a thing. It had just been purchased for money, for a money safe. * * * Its design and purpose was for keeping the valuables of this corporation inside of it.

We were to bolt it to the floor in the showroom in full view of the public and we just hadn't got to it.'

G.S. § 14--89.1 is the statute creating and describing the offense charged in this bill of indictment. It provides:

'Any person who shall be the use of explosives, drills, or other tools unlawfully force open or attempt to force open or 'pick' the combination of a safe or vault Used for storing money or other valuables, shall, upon conviction thereof, receive a sentence, in the discretion of the trial judge, of from ten years to life imprisonment in the State penitentiary.' (Emphasis added.)

It is elementary that a criminal statute must be construed strictly. State v. Garrett, 263 N.C. 773, 140 S.E.2d 315; State v. Heath, 199 N.C. 135, 153 S.E. 855, 87 A.L.R. 37; Strong, N.C.Index, Statutes, § 5. Adams, J., speaking for the Court in the Heath case, said: 'The forbidden act must come clearly within the prohibition of the statute, for the scope of a penal statute will not ordinarily be enlarged by construction to take in offenses not clearly described; and any doubt on this point will be resolved in favor of the defendant.'

In State v. Whitehurst, 212 N.C. 300, 193 S.E. 657, 113 A.L.R. 740, Stacy, C.J., speaking for the Court, said:

'By the rule of strict construction, however, is not meant that the statute shall be stintingly or even narrowly construed (State v. Earnhardt, 170 N.C. 725, 86 S.E. 960), but it means that everything shall be excluded from its operation which does not clearly come within the scope of the language used. United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat., 76, 5 L.Ed. 37. Criminal statutes are not to be extended by implication or equitable construction to include those not within their terms, for the very obvious reason that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, and not in the judicial department. It is the General Assembly which is to define crimes and ordain their punishment.'

In G.S. § 14--89.1 the General Assembly has seen fit to provide for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment up to life upon conviction of the offense there described. It has made an element of that offense the fact that the safe forced open be one 'used for storing money or other valuables.' Obviously, this phrase was intended to qualify and restrict the words 'safe or vault.' At least three constructions of this qualifying phrase are conceivable: (1) Intended or designed for use for the storing of money or other valuables; (2) actually containing money or other valuables at the time of the forcible opening; (3) kept and customarily used for the storing of money or other valuables as of the time of the forcible opening.

To adopt the first of these possible constructions would deprive the qualifying phrase of meaning, for all practicable purposes, since the words 'safe or vault,' in themselves, connote a receptacle for the keeping of things of value. To adopt the second of the above possible constructions of the qualifying phrase would, in our opinion, be a strained construction of the statute, for to give it that meaning would prevent a conviction of one who, by the means specified in the statute, forces open a safe habitually used by the owner for the keeping of money or other valuables, but which, at the time of the forcible opening, happens to contain nothing of value. The third of the above possible constructions, therefore, is, in our opinion, the meaning intended by the Legislature and we so construe the statute.

We are brought, therefore, to the question of whether one has committed the offense forbidden by this statute, for which he may be imprisoned for the remainder of his life, when, with the requisite intent and by one of the specified methods, he forcibly opens a newly acquired safe, not yet installed in its intended location in the owner's place of business and which has never been used by the owner as a container for anything. We think the answer must be 'No,' and that the evidence of the State in Case No. 50--249B showed conclusively that one of the essential elements of the crime charged in the indictment was not present. Therefore, the defendant's motion for judgment of nonsuit in that case should have been allowed and the judgment in that case must be reversed.

In Case No. 50--249, in which the defendant was charged in the indictment with breaking and entering the building, and in Case No. 50--249A, in which the defendant was charged in the indictment with the forcible opening of the two-door safe, the evidence of the...