State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 02 April 1985
• Docket Number: No. 849SC652,849SC652
• Citation: 327 S.E.2d 300,74 N.C.App. 131
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Randy WILLIAMS.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 300

327 S.E.2d 300

74 N.C.App. 131

STATE of North Carolina v. Randy WILLIAMS.

No. 849SC652.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 2, 1985.

Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen. Tiare B. Smiley, Raleigh, for the State.

Appellate Defender Adam Stein by Asst. Appellate Defender Robin E. Hudson, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

JOHNSON, Judge.

The first issue to be addressed is whether North Carolina had jurisdiction to prosecute and convict the accused for the felonious possession of stolen property when there is no evidence that the offense occurred partly or wholly within the state.

It is well settled law that an act must have occurred within the territorial boundaries of the state to be punishable as a crime in the state. State v. Jones, 227 N.C. 94, 40 S.E.2d 700 (1946). There are few exceptions to this rule. However, prosecution may occur in conspiracy cases when the offense is executed inside the state but formed outside the state. State v. Overton, 60 N.C.App. 1, 36, 298 S.E.2d 695, 716 (1982), disc. rev. denied, 307 N.C. 581, 299 S.E.2d 653 (1983). Similarly, G.S. 15A-134, allows the prosecution of offenses which occur partly within state boundaries. The instant case does not fall within any of these exceptions.

There was no evidence presented which showed that the defendant possessed the stolen vehicle in North Carolina. The evidence only established that defendant Williams had possession of the car in the District of Columbia. The State contends that under the principles enunciated in State v Batdorf, 293 N.C. 486, 238 S.E.2d 497 (1977), it made a prima facie showing of jurisdiction based on inferences sufficient for the jury to infer that the defendant possessed the car in North Carolina. We cannot accept the State's argument that the jury could have inferred, under the facts and circumstances, that the defendant took possession of the motor vehicle in North Carolina and drove it to the District of Columbia. We find Batdorf clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

In Batdorf, the State presented the following evidence as support that the crime occurred in North Carolina: (1) the murder weapon was concealed in North Carolina and recovered in North Carolina; (2) the victim's body was discovered in North Carolina; and (3) the materials with which the victim's body was bound and weighted came from the North Carolina home of the defendant's girlfriend. These facts were undisputed and the Court held that these...