State v. Williams, 168
| Citation | 144 S.E.2d 267,265 N.C. 446 |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 168,168 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Johnnie WILLIAMS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, Deputy Atty. Gen. Harrison Lewis, Trial Attorney Eugene A. Smith, Raleigh, for the State.
John R. Parker, Clinton, for defendant.
The appellant does not contend the State's evidence was insufficient to carry the case to the jury and to support the verdict.
The appellant assigns as error, however, the failure of the court below to arrest judgment for that the bill of indictment was fatally defective in that it failed to allege one of the requisite elements of the crime of robbery, to wit, the taking with felonious intent to convert the personal property allegedly stolen to defendant's own use.
Robbery at common law is defined as the felonious taking of money or goods of any value from the person of another in his presence, against his will, by violence or putting him in fear. State v. Stewart, 255 N.C. 571, 122 S.E.2d 355; State v. Bell, 228 N.C. 659, 46 S.E.2d 834; State v. Burke, 73 N.C. 83. The gist of the offense of robbery with firearms is the accomplishment of the robbery by the use of or threatened use of firearms or other dangerous weapon. State v. Mull, 224 N.C. 571, 31 S.E.2d 764.
The indictment in the instant case is sufficient to meet the requirements of G.S. § 14-87, and the allegation that the intent to convert the personal property stolen to the defendant's own use is not required to be alleged in the bill of indictment. State v. Brown, 113 N.C. 645, 18 S.E. 51; State v. Stewart, supra; State v. Rogers, 246 N.C. 611, 99 S.E.2d 803.
In the case of State v. Lunsford, 229 N.C. 229, 49 S.E.2d 410, relied on by the appellant, a new trial was granted because the court in its charge to the jury inadvertently failed to explain to the jury what constitutes felonious intent in the law of robbery. In the instant case, the court fully instructed the jury as to what is meant by a felonious taking. Cf. State v. Chase, 231 N.C. 589, 58 S.E.2d 364. This assignment of error is overruled.
Appellant's assignment of error challenging the correctness of the judgment entered on the verdict returned by the jury is well taken and must be sustained.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of robbery and the court below imposed a sentence of not less than fifteen nor more than twenty years in the State's prison. When, on a charge of robbery with firearms or other dangerous weapon, the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Young
...defendant's own use, for the question of specific intent would properly be submitted to the jury under the charge. State v. Williams, 265 N.C. 446, 144 S.E.2d 267 (1965); State v. Frietch, 8 N.C.App. 331, 174 S.E.2d 149 (1970). Furthermore, the judge expressly charged the jury that the taki......
-
State v. Harris
...State v. Swaney, 277 N.C. 602, 178 S.E.2d 399 (1971); State v. Rogers, 273 N.C. 208, 159 S.E.2d 525 (1968); State v. Williams, 265 N.C. 446, 144 S.E.2d 267 (1965). The evidence that defendant had a pistol within easy reach, that he had threatened the prosecutrix with it, and that she was in......
-
State v. Wesson
...103 Ohio App. 436, 145 N.E.2d 673 (1957). Compare, Head v. Commonwealth, 211 Ky. 41, 276 S.W. 1061 (1925). In State v. Williams, 265 N.C. 446, 144 S.E.2d 267 (1965), it was held that the allegation that the intent to convert the personal property stolen to the defendant's own use is not req......
-
State v. Black
...of robbery by the use or threatened use of firearms or other dangerous weapons. State v. Rogers, supra; State v. Williams, 265 N.C. 446, 144 S.E.2d 267 (1965). There must be an actual taking of property for there to be the crime of common-law robbery, whereas under G.S. § 14--87 the offense......