State v. Walker
| Decision Date | 17 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 6919SC531,6919SC531 |
| Citation | 6 N.C.App. 740,171 S.E.2d 91 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Robert WALKER, Alias Robert Hill. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen., by Richard M. League, Staff Attorney, Raleigh, for the State.
George L. Burke, Jr., Salisbury, E. C. Burnett, Jr., Spartanburg, S.C., for defendant appellant.
Defendant's motions for judgment of nonsuit were properly overruled. While there must be a taking and carrying away of the personal property of another to complete the crime of larceny, it is not necessary that the property be completely removed from the premises of the owner. 'The least removal of an article, from the actual or constructive possession of the owner, so as to be under the control of the felon, will be a sufficient asportation.' State v. Jones, 65 N.C. 395, 397. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence permits an inference that defendant removed the rings from the place where they were kept with the intent to deprive the owner of their possession permanently and to convert them to his own use or the use of some other person. The fact that the property may have been in defendant's possession and under his control for only an instant is immaterial if his removal of the rings from their original status was such as would constitute a complete severance from the possession of the owner. State v. Green, 81 N.C. 560; State v. Jackson, 65 N.C. 305; 52 A C.J.S. Larceny § 6, p. 427. There was testimony that defendant was successful in putting some of the rings in his pocket. This, standing alone, constitutes sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question of asportation. For a case directly in point see People v. Lardner, 300 Ill. 264, 133 N.E. 375, 19 A.L.R. 721.
Defendant assigns as error the overruling of his objection to a question asked him on cross-examination about a statement he made to police officers that he took the rings because he had a girl pregnant and needed some money to get her out of trouble. Defendant admitted having made the statement. This cross-examination was relevant for the purpose of showing that defendant had a motive for the alleged crime. Stansbury, N.C.Evidence 2d, § 83. It was also competent to show that defendant had made prior statements inconsistent with his testimony at the trial. Stansbury, N.C.Evidence 2d, § 46.
Defendant further assigns as error various portions of the charge, contending that the court misstated some of the evidence, erred in instructing the jury to carefully scrutinize defendant's testimony, and overly stressed the State's contentions. These contentions are without merit. Slight inaccuracies in the statement of the evidence will not be held for reversible error when not called to the attention of the court at the time. State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509, 160 S.E.2d 469; State v. Sterling, 200 N.C. 18, 156 S.E. 96. The court not only instructed the jury to carefully scrutinize the testimony of the defendant as an interested witness but also that if they believed his testimony and found it to be true they were to give to it the same weight as that of a disinterested witness. This instruction was proper. 3 Strong, N.C.Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 117. The contentions of the State and defendant were, in our opinion, fairly stated.
Defendant's remaining assignments of error challenge the court's failure to instruct the jury as to its duty in fixing the value of the property taken and the failure of the court to submit to the jury the possible verdict of misdemeanor-larceny. These assignments of error are well taken.
The record reflects that the verdict of the jury was that the defendant was guilty of 'grand larceny.' The distinction between grand larceny and petty larceny has been abolished in this State for many years. G.S. § 14--70. (For a discussion of the history of the larceny statutes in this State see opinion of Bobbitt, J. (now C.J.), in State v. Cooper, 256 N.C. 372, 124 S.E.2d 91.) While there is no longer a crime in this State designated as 'grand larceny' we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Key
...of the owner, so as to be under the control of the felon, will be a sufficient asportation" to establish larceny. State v. Walker, 6 N.C.App. 740, 743, 171 S.E.2d 91, 93 (1969). "[I]ntent or absence of it may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the occurrence..." State v. Keitt, ......
-
State v. Grant, CR--1180
...in dispute.' 1 Stansbury, N.C. Evidence (Brandis rev.) § 83, at 254; Accord, State v. Church, 231 N.C. 39, 55 S.E.2d 792; State v. Walker, 6 N.C.App. 740, 171 S.E.2d 91; See State v. Wilcox, 132 N.C. 1120, 1144, 44 S.E. 625, 633. In State v. Green, 92 N.C. 779, 783, the court in a felonious......
-
State v. Butcher
...28 (1970); State v. Ritter, 239 N.C. 89, 79 S.E.2d 164 (1953); State v. Lambe, 232 N.C. 570, 61 S.E.2d 608 (1950); State v. Walker, 6 N.C.App. 740, 171 S.E.2d 91 (1969); State v. Bass, 5 N.C.App. 429, 168 S.E.2d 424 (1969). But this rule is not applicable where the misstatement is of a mate......
-
State v. Froneberger, 8527SC1148
...goods and the accused must have the goods in his possession, or under his control, even if only for an instant); State v. Walker, 6 N.C.App. 740, 743, 171 S.E.2d 91, 93 (1969) ("While there must be a taking and carrying away of the personal property of another to complete the crime of larce......