{ "id": 11237688, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GARY DARNELL HAMILTON, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hamilton", "decision_date": "1999-02-16", "docket_number": "No. COA98-526", "first_page": "316", "last_page": "322", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "132 N.C. App. 316" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "298 S.E.2d 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562819 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 S.E.2d 650", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 N.C. App. 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524994 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "358" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/58/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 S.E.2d 738", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 897", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 795916, 796112, 796022, 796090, 796123 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0897-02", "/nc/342/0897-05", "/nc/342/0897-04", "/nc/342/0897-01", "/nc/342/0897-03" ] }, { "cite": "463 S.E.2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "596", "parenthetical": "holding that misdemeanor breaking and entering must be submitted as lesser included offense in first-degree burglary case only \"if there is substantial evidence the defendant broke and entered for some non-felonious reason other than that alleged in the indictment.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. App. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11917860 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "743" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/120/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 S.E.2d 744", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "746-47" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 N.C. App. 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523390 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "306" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/80/0302-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E.2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "516" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568869 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "385 S.E.2d 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "164" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 N.C. App. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520944 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "202" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/96/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 S.E.2d 118", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "127" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568285 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "301" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 L. Ed. 2d 88", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "495 S.E.2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "687" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551134 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-54", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-159.12", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "490 S.E.2d 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "250" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11797170 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "438" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 L. Ed. 2d 912", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "485 U.S. 1036", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 13312, 13445, 13287, 13545, 13740, 13965, 13233, 14131, 13397, 13238, 13399, 13750, 13849, 13725 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/485/1036-05", "/us/485/1036-12", "/us/485/1036-11", "/us/485/1036-04", "/us/485/1036-06", "/us/485/1036-14", "/us/485/1036-08", "/us/485/1036-10", "/us/485/1036-01", "/us/485/1036-02", "/us/485/1036-13", "/us/485/1036-03", "/us/485/1036-09", "/us/485/1036-07" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 244", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "251" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2569839 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "501 S.E.2d 309", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "320" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659853 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 L. Ed. 2d 341", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "510 U.S. 948", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 231682, 233093, 235270, 233531, 235692, 232590, 231374, 230994, 230899, 232630, 234584, 234875, 235740, 233052 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/510/0948-14", "/us/510/0948-04", "/us/510/0948-12", "/us/510/0948-11", "/us/510/0948-13", "/us/510/0948-10", "/us/510/0948-08", "/us/510/0948-09", "/us/510/0948-01", "/us/510/0948-06", "/us/510/0948-07", "/us/510/0948-02", "/us/510/0948-03", "/us/510/0948-05" ] }, { "cite": "428 S.E.2d 118", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 N.C. 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2549203 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/333/0350-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 L. Ed. 2d 263", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "515 U.S. 1107", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1564320, 1564576, 1563909, 1563719, 1564552, 1564011, 1564333, 1564336, 1564048, 1563890, 1563703, 1564183, 1563705, 1563866, 1563675 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/515/1107-03", "/us/515/1107-07", "/us/515/1107-01", "/us/515/1107-08", "/us/515/1107-13", "/us/515/1107-09", "/us/515/1107-14", "/us/515/1107-12", "/us/515/1107-05", "/us/515/1107-10", "/us/515/1107-11", "/us/515/1107-04", "/us/515/1107-02", "/us/515/1107-15", "/us/515/1107-06" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 157", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "168", "parenthetical": "holding offense 8 years prior admissible" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2518853 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589", "parenthetical": "holding offense 8 years prior admissible" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E.2d 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596105 ], "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "175" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0171-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 422", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "426" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4703969 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0127-01" ] }, { "cite": "434 S.E.2d 193", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530846 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "410 S.E.2d 67", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "75" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. App. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521646 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "348" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/104/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 L. Ed. 2d 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "516 U.S. 994", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 324192, 326433, 325570, 326147, 328450, 325243, 328216, 323051, 328556, 324366, 324911, 327448, 327675, 328317 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/516/0994-10", "/us/516/0994-09", "/us/516/0994-01", "/us/516/0994-14", "/us/516/0994-08", "/us/516/0994-07", "/us/516/0994-12", "/us/516/0994-06", "/us/516/0994-13", "/us/516/0994-05", "/us/516/0994-04", "/us/516/0994-02", "/us/516/0994-03", "/us/516/0994-11" ] }, { "cite": "457 S.E.2d 841", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "853" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790203 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 S.E.2d 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "276" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 N.C. App. 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527973 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "226" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/93/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 S.E.2d 171", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "176" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560598 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "464" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E.2d 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "580", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Thorpe, 274 N.C. 457, 464, 164 S.E.2d 171, 176 (1968)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567586 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Thorpe, 274 N.C. 457, 464, 164 S.E.2d 171, 176 (1968)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E.2d 510", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512", "parenthetical": "holding that fingerprints in non-public portion of building where defendant was not an employee support reasonable inference of guilt and submission of case to jury" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523931 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "362", "parenthetical": "holding that fingerprints in non-public portion of building where defendant was not an employee support reasonable inference of guilt and submission of case to jury" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "383 S.E.2d 456", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "457", "parenthetical": "holding that fingerprints on window of room with missing television constituted sufficient evidence to submit case to jury" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 N.C. App. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522426 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "628", "parenthetical": "holding that fingerprints on window of room with missing television constituted sufficient evidence to submit case to jury" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/95/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E.2d 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566333 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "4" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 S.E.2d 352", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "355" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4749161 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "605" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "304 S.E.2d 239", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4708864, 4708549, 4705097, 4709780, 4709951 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0545-02", "/nc/308/0545-03", "/nc/308/0545-01", "/nc/308/0545-04", "/nc/308/0545-05" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 819", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "820" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520231 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 S.E.2d 835", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "838" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574086 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "504" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 S.E.2d 432", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434" }, { "page": "435", "parenthetical": "holding that where fingerprints were uniquely positioned on a car door, \"the fingerprint evidence, standing alone, was sufficient to send this case to the jury\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 713", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 53881 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "717" }, { "page": "718" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0713-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 771, "char_count": 16617, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1655383517154295e-07, "percentile": 0.5850912543549837 }, "sha256": "851bb40b3d0903b2263de7e2624da3aa35bb47f3787e1df3429563bdaa90c4ac", "simhash": "1:177d542a33de1f70", "word_count": 2754 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:15.604309+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WALKER and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GARY DARNELL HAMILTON, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nDefendant was indicted on 3 April 1995 for felonious breaking or entering, felonious larceny, felonious possession of stolen goods, and as a habitual felon. The jury convicted defendant of felonious breaking or entering, acquitted him of felonious larceny, and was not instructed as to felonious possession of stolen goods. Defendant argues three assignments of error, each of which we overrule.\nThe evidence tended to show that the store manager of Belk in Clinton arrived at the store at approximately 8:30 a.m. on 29 April 1993 and found the doors undisturbed and the alarm system armed. As the manager walked through the store, he discovered a hole measuring approximately two feet by three feet in the roof of the store. Merchandise worth approximately $24,000.00, including large amounts of jewelry and clothing, was missing. Police officers determined that the perpetrator gained access to the building by two plastic milk crates stacked on an electrical box near the rear entrance of the building. The perpetrator then climbed up a downspout to an awning that covered the rear entrance of the building. From the awning, the perpetrator climbed to the roof. Defendant\u2019s fingerprints were found on top of the awning, eleven feet, four inches from the ground. Defendant had previously been convicted of and served an active sentence for breaking or entering and larceny of the Sears store in Greenville on 25 July 1990. That crime also involved a rooftop hole as means of entry to the store and the theft of a large amount of jewelry.\nDefendant first argues that the trial court should have granted his motions to dismiss the charges. Defendant claims there was not enough evidence to show that he broke or entered the store and not enough evidence to support a finding of felonious intent. As to both contentions, we disagree.\nWhen the trial court rules on a motion to dismiss, the prosecution must be given \u201cevery reasonable inference\u201d of the evidence presented. State v. Cross, 345 N.C. 713, 717, 483 S.E.2d 432, 434 (1997). \u201cIf the evidence adduced at trial gives rise to a reasonable inference of guilt, it is for the members of the jury to decide whether the facts shown satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt.\u201d State v. Jones, 303 N.C. 500, 504, 279 S.E.2d 835, 838 (1981). Circumstantial and direct evidence are each considered in weighing whether the evidence is substantial so as to survive the defendant\u2019s motion. See State v. Capps, 61 N.C. App. 225, 227, 300 S.E.2d 819, 820, disc. review denied, 308 N.C. 545, 304 S.E.2d 239 (1983). Generally, questions of the sufficiency of the evidence must be determined on a case by case basis. See State v. Blake, 319 N.C. 599, 605, 356 S.E.2d 352, 355 (1987).\nIn this case, the prosecution relied on fingerprint evidence found high above the ground and within the crime scene to defeat defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss. When relying on fingerprint evidence to defeat a motion to dismiss, the prosecution must present substantial evidence of circumstances from which the jury could find the print \u201ccould only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed.\u201d State v. Miller, 289 N.C. 1, 4, 220 S.E.2d 572, 574 (1975). Here, defendant\u2019s fingerprints were recovered from the top of the Belk awning more than eleven feet above the ground. The store manager testified that the building had received \u201cno roofing work at all\u201d in recent months and that no one had permission to enter the building through the roof. Defendant was acquainted with the modus operandi of such a crime as evidenced by his prior conviction of a rooftop breaking or entering. We hold that the surrounding circumstances combined with the fingerprint evidence were sufficient to send the case to the jury. See Cross, 345 N.C. at 718, 483 S.E.2d at 435 (holding that where fingerprints were uniquely positioned on a car door, \u201cthe fingerprint evidence, standing alone, was sufficient to send this case to the jury\u201d); State v. Williams, 95 N.C. App. 627, 628, 383 S.E.2d 456, 457 (1989) (holding that fingerprints on window of room with missing television constituted sufficient evidence to submit case to jury); State v. Bradley, 65 N.C. App. 359, 362, 309 S.E.2d 510, 512 (1983) (holding that fingerprints in non-public portion of building where defendant was not an employee support reasonable inference of guilt and submission of case to jury).\nDefendant also contends that his motions to dismiss should have been granted because there was insufficient evidence of his intent to commit a felony inside Belk. We disagree. If the evidence presents no other explanation for breaking into the building, and there is no showing of the owner\u2019s consent, intent to commit a felony inside \u201c \u2018may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the occurrence.\u2019 \u201d See State v. Myrick, 306 N.C. 110, 115, 291 S.E.2d 577, 580 (1982) (quoting State v. Thorpe, 274 N.C. 457, 464, 164 S.E.2d 171, 176 (1968)). See also In re Cousin, 93 N.C. App. 224, 226, 377 S.E.2d 275, 276 (1989). No evidence of any other reason for breaking or entering through the hole in the roof was offered or suggested, and the manager discovered thousands of dollars of merchandise missing the same day the hole was discovered. Therefore, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to support an inference that defendant broke or entered Belk with felonious intent. The trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss.\nSecond, defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear evidence of defendant\u2019s prior conviction for a similar rooftop breaking or entering.'The trial court twice instructed the jury that they were hearing evidence of defendant\u2019s Sears conviction only for the purpose of identification. Prior crimes are admissible under Rule 404(b) so long as they are \u201crelevant to any fact or issue other than defendant\u2019s propensity to commit the crime.\u201d State v. White, 340 N.C. 264, 284, 457 S.E.2d 841, 853, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 994, 133 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1995). Evidence of the prior crime must be sufficiently similar to the crime charged and not too remote in time such that it is more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403. See State v. Reid, 104 N.C. App. 334, 348, 410 S.E.2d 67, 75 (1991), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 334 N.C. 551, 434 S.E.2d 193 (1993).\n\u201cWhere the accused is not definitely identified as the perpetrator of the crime charged and the circumstances tend to show that the crime charged and another offense were committed by the same person, evidence that the accused committed the other offense is admissible to identify him as the perpetrator of the crime charged.\u201d\nState v. Riddick, 316 N.C. 127, 133, 340 S.E.2d 422, 426 (1986), (quoting State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 175, 81 S.E.2d 364, 367 (1954)). The passage of time affects the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, when the evidence is offered to show identity. See State v. Carter, 338 N.C. 569, 589, 451 S.E.2d 157, 168 (1994) (holding offense 8 years prior admissible), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1107, 132 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1995). Finally, whether to exclude evidence under Rule 403 is a decision vested with the trial court and will not be disturbed unless it is \u201cmanifestly unsupported by reason.\u201d State v. Syriani, 333 N.C. 350, 379, 428 S.E.2d 118, 133, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 948, 126 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1993).\nHere, we hold that the trial court did not err in allowing evidence of defendant\u2019s prior conviction before the jury. The court gave a proper limiting instruction telling the jury to consider the evidence only for identity. See State v. Lemons, 348 N.C. 335, 353, 501 S.E.2d 309, 320 (1998). The crimes were similar as they both involved cutting a hole in the roof of a department store in eastern North Carolina and removing large amounts of jewelry from display counters. The elapsed time of two years and nine months affects only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. We believe the prior crime was sufficiently similar to the crime charged, and there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing this evidence to go before the jury. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.\nFinally, defendant contends that the trial court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of misdemeanor breaking or entering and first-degree trespass. This Court reviews a jury charge to which defendant failed to object for error that was \u201cso fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice.\u201d State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 213, 362 S.E.2d 244, 251 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036, 99 L. Ed. 2d 912 (1988). We detect no such error here.\nFirst, defendant is correct in his contention that first-degree trespass is a lesser included offense of felony breaking or entering. To be a lesser included offense, each essential element in the lesser offense must also be in the greater crime. State v. Love, 127 N.C. App. 437, 438, 490 S.E.2d 249, 250 (1997). N.C. Gen. Stat. section 14-159.12 provides that a person is guilty of first-degree trespass when \u201cwithout authorization, he enters or remains . . . [o]n premises of another . . . or [i]n a building of another.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-159.12 (1993). By contrast, felony breaking or entering requires a defendant \u201cbreak[] or enter[] any building with intent to commit any felony or larceny therein.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-54(a) (1993). Misdemeanor breaking or entering occurs when a defendant \u201cwrongfully breaks or enters any building.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-54(b) (1993). The essential elements of first-degree trespass are present in the charge of and indictment for felony breaking or entering.\nHowever, our inquiry does not end with a determination that the noted crimes are indeed lesser included offenses. An instruction on a lesser included offense must be given, even without a request from defendant, only if there is evidence to support his conviction of the less grievous offense. See State v. Richmond, 347 N.C. 412, 431, 495 S.E.2d 677, 687, cert. denied, \u2014 U.S. -, 142 L. Ed. 2d 88 (1998). The trial court is not, however, obligated to give a lesser included instruction if there is \u201cno evidence giving rise to a reasonable inference to dispute the State\u2019s contention.\u201d State v. McKinnon, 306 N.C. 288, 301, 293 S.E.2d 118, 127 (1982). The mere possibility that a jury might reject part of the prosecution\u2019s evidence does not require submission of a lesser included offense. See State v. Barnette, 96 N.C. App. 199, 202, 385 S.E.2d 163, 164 (1989).\nDefendant points to State v. Worthey, 270 N.C. 444, 446, 154 S.E.2d 515, 516 (1967), as support for his contention. There, the Supreme Court held that misdemeanor breaking or entering should have been submitted as a lesser included offense because \u201cevidence as to defendant\u2019s intent was circumstantial and did not point unerr: ingly to an intent to commit a felony.\u201d Id. The defendant testified at his trial that he had gone inside the premises to meet an employee and had been using the restroom facilities while waiting for the employee to give him a ride. Indeed, in Worthey, no items were removed from the premises. Defendant also cites State v. Patton, 80 N.C. App. 302, 306, 341 S.E.2d 744, 746-47 (1986). In Patton, this Court held that since no items were missing from the subject premises and the only evidence of the defendant\u2019s intent was the fact that he broke and entered, a misdemeanor instruction was required. See id.\nBoth of these cases are readily distinguishable. Defendant did not testify or present any evidence that he broke or entered for any non-felonious purpose. The indictment alleges larceny, and no other explanation was given for the unauthorized entry into the store. The trial court need not submit misdemeanor breaking or entering instructions on these facts. See State v. Merritt, 120 N.C. App. 732, 743, 463 S.E.2d 590, 596 (1995) (holding that misdemeanor breaking and entering must be submitted as lesser included offense in first-degree burglary case only \u201cif there is substantial evidence the defendant broke and entered for some non-felonious reason other than that alleged in the indictment.\u201d), disc. review denied, 342 N.C. 897, 467 S.E.2d 738 (1996).\nFurthermore, in this case items were missing from the subject premises after defendant broke or entered. This Court similarly distinguished Worthey in State v. Berry. Because items were removed from the home in Berry, \u201c[a]ll the evidence was to the effect that whoever broke into [the] house intended to take the television set.\u201d State v. Berry, 58 N.C. App. 355, 358, 293 S.E.2d 650, 652 (1982), aff\u2019d, 307 N.C. 463, 298 S.E.2d 386 (1983). Therefore, we held there was no evidence of misdemeanor breaking or entering, but rather only evidence of felonious breaking or entering. See id.\nHere, there is no evidence that might convince a rational trier of fact that defendant scaled the wall, attained the roof, forced a hole in it, and entered the Belk store for some reason other than larceny. Defendant offered no alternative reason, and items indeed were stolen from the premises. Therefore, there was no need to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of misdemeanor breaking or entering or first degree trespass. This assignment of error is overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges WALKER and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEWIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General J. Philip Allen, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Anne M. Gomez, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GARY DARNELL HAMILTON, Defendant\nNo. COA98-526\n(Filed 16 February 1999)\n1. Larceny\u2014 sufficiency of evidence \u2014 fingerprints\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss charges of breaking or entering, felonious larceny, and felonious possession of stolen goods where a Belk\u2019s store was found with a hole in the roof and $24,000 of merchandise missing, defendant\u2019s fingerprints were recovered from the top of an awning more than eleven feet above the ground, the store manager testified that the building had received no roofing work at all in recent months and that no one had permission to enter the building through the roof, and defendant was acquainted with the modus operandi of such a crime as evidenced by a prior conviction of a rooftop breaking or entering.\n2. Burglary and Unlawful Breaking or Entering\u2014 felonious intent \u2014 no other explanation\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss charges of breaking or entering where a Belk\u2019s store was found with a hole in the roof and $24,000 in merchandise missing, no evidence of any other reason for breaking or entering through the hole in the roof was offered or suggested, and the manager discovered the thousands of dollars of missing merchandise the same day the hole was discovered. If the evidence presents no other explanation for breaking into the building and there is no showing of the owner\u2019s consent, intent to commit a felony inside may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the occurrence.\n3. Evidence\u2014 prior crime or act \u2014 prior similar conviction\u2014 admissible\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for breaking or entering, felonious larceny, and felonious possession of stolen goods by admitting evidence of a prior conviction for a similar rooftop breaking or entering. The crimes were similar in that they both involved cutting a hole in the roof of a department store in eastern North Carolina and removing large amounts of jewelry from display counters. The elapsed time of two years and nine months affects only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.\n4. Burglary and Unlawful Breaking or Entering\u2014 breaking or entering \u2014 lesser included offenses \u2014 misdemeanor breaking or entering \u2014 first-degree trespass\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for felonious breaking or entering and felonious larceny by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offenses of misdemeanor breaking or entering and first-degree trespass. The mere possibility that a jury might reject part of the prosecution\u2019s evidence does not require submission of a lesser included offense; here, there is no evidence that might convince a rational trier of fact that defendant scaled a wall, attained a roof, forced a hole in it, and entered a Belk store for some reason other than larceny.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment and commitment entered 29 June 1995 by Judge Ernest B. Fullwood in Sampson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 January 1999.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General J. Philip Allen, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Anne M. Gomez, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0316-01", "first_page_order": 350, "last_page_order": 356 }