State v. Lassiter
| Decision Date | 12 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 7214SC474,7214SC474 |
| Citation | 189 S.E.2d 798,15 N.C.App. 265 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Allen Venell LASSITER. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan by Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard P. Satisky, for the State.
Felix B. Clayton, Durham, for defendant appellant.
Defendant assigns as error the overruling of his motion for nonsuit made at the close of the State's evidence and renewed at the close of all of the evidence. This assignment of error is overruled.
The State's evidence tends to show the following: On 18 November 1971, Ernest Gann, an officer of Gann Industrial Suppliers Co., Inc., went to inspect and old building owned by the company and located on South Alston Avenue in Durham. The building, which is used as a storage facility, contained old but valuable knitting machines and dyeing equipment. Most of the machines have parts made of brass or corper. When Gann arrived at the building he heard banging noises coming from the basement. He located a police officer and the two men entered the building together. They found defendant and another man in the basement of the building. Defendant had tools in his hands and the men 'were working on trying to get two pieces of brass apart.' Neither defendant nor his companion had permission to enter the building. Defendant later admitted in a statement to a police detective that he had entered the building to 'steal' brass fittings which he intended to sell at a junkyard.
The State's evidence indicated that no breaking was necessary for defendant to gain entry to the building. The building's doors and windows were out and in past years it had been subject to a great deal of vandalism and pilfering. However, a breaking is not a necessary element of the offense charged here. G.S. § 14--54(a) provides that any person who breaks Or enters any building with intent to commit any felony or larceny is guilty of a felony. The offense defined in this section is complete, all other elements being present, if there was an entry with felonious intent. State v. Vines, 262 N.C. 747, 138 S.E.2d 630; State v. Bronson, 10 N.C.App. 638, 179 S.E.2d 823.
Defendant contends the court erred in allowing in evidence an in-custody statement made by defendant to a Durham detective. When defendant objected to testimony about the statement, the court ordered a voir dire hearing. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court made full findings of fact and concluded that the statement was intelligently and voluntarily made without threats or promises being made to defendant.
'It is well established in North Carolina that findings of fact made by the trial judge and conclusions drawn therefrom on the voir dire examination are binding on the appellate courts if supported by evidence.' State v. Accor and State v. Moore, 281 N.C. 287, 291, 188 S.E.2d 332, 335. Evidence presented by the State on voir dire tended to show that defendant was fully advised by the detective as to his constitutional rights; that defendant stated to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reaves, 725SC424
...turn support the conclusions made, are binding on appeal. State v. Accor and State v. Moore, 281 N.C. 287, 188 S.E.2d 332; State v. Lassiter, N.C.App., 189 S.E.2d 798 (opinion filed 12 July Moreover, the uncontroverted evidence elicited on Voir dire tended to show that the out-of-court iden......
-
State v. Barnett
...shows either a breaking or an entering; it need not show both. State v. Jones, 272 N.C. 108, 157 S.E.2d 610 (1967); State v. Lassiter, 15 N.C.App. 265, 189 S.E.2d 798 Cert. denied 281 N.C. 761, 191 S.E.2d 358 (1972); State v. Pittman, 14 N.C.App. 588, 188 S.E.2d 694 (1972). In view of the u......
- Wardrick v. Davis
-
State v. Lassiter
...State. Felix B. Clayton, for defendant. Petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 189 S.E.2d 798. ...