{
  "id": 8547400,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LEE HOOVER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hoover",
  "decision_date": "1972-03-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 7218SC57",
  "first_page": "154",
  "last_page": "157",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 154"
    }
  ],
  "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": "133 S.E. 2d 649",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 753",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576315
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0753-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 S.E. 2d 355",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.C. 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571320
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/255/0571-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 880",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 272",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629576
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0272-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 351,
    "char_count": 5461,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.233951850344285e-07,
      "percentile": 0.779315898340019
    },
    "sha256": "b19a572b5a35aede10002329b289493ade22a821f670239ad6fdf8624ac63170",
    "simhash": "1:9fb089ba5a7f182c",
    "word_count": 933
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LEE HOOVER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the trial court committed error in refusing to grant his motion for nonsuit made at the close of the State\u2019s evidence. Defendant was charged with attempted robbery. \u201cAn attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime, carried beyond mere preparation to commit it, but falling short of its actual commission. [citations omitted]. \u2018An indictable attempt, therefore, consists of two important elements: (1) an intent to commit the crime, and (2) a direct ineffectual act done toward its commission.\u2019 \u201d State v. Surles, 230 N.C. 272, 52 S.E. 2d 880. Furthermore, \u201cRobbery at common law is the felonious taking of money or goods of any value from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by violence or putting him in fear.\u201d State v. Stewart, 255 N.C. 571, 122 S.E. 2d 355. The evidence is ample to support a jury finding that defendant intended to rob the savings and loan, that he placed the tellers in fear, and that he committed a direct act in furtherance of the crime but which fell short of accomplishing its actual commission. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant further contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence and testimony relating to weapons found in defendant\u2019s car and as to the paper bag found concealed on his person. Intent is one of the elements of the offense with which defendant was charged. Intent, by its very nature, is most often not susceptible to proof by direct evidence. \u201cIntent is an attitude or emotion of the mind and is seldom, if ever, susceptible of proof by direct evidence, it must ordinarily be proved by circumstantial evidence, i.e., by facts and circumstances from which it may be inferred.\u201d State v. Gammons, 260 N.C. 753, 133 S.E. 2d 649. For these reasons, among others, the evidence was properly admitted.\nWe have carefully considered all of defendant\u2019s assignments of error including those directed at the charge of the court and find them to be without merit. In the entire trial we find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney William Lewis Sauls for the State.",
      "Public Defender for the Eighteenth Judicial District Wallace C. Harrelson and Assistant Public Defender J. Dale Shepherd for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LEE HOOVER\nNo. 7218SC57\n(Filed 29 March 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 3\u2014 attempt to commit crime\nAn attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime, carried beyond mere preparation to commit it, but falling short of its actual commission.\n2. Robbery \u00a7 4\u2014 attempted robbery \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of attempted common law robbery where it tended to show that defendant entered a savings and loan association branch office, that he handed a teller a note containing the words, \u201cThis is a hold-up. Close door. Lock Doors,\u201d and other instructions, that a teller pushed a silent alarm button, that defendant recognized one of the tellers as a neighbor of his sister, that defendant stated he was kidding, took his note and left the building, that the police arrived and pursued defendant, and that when stopped by the police, defendant had a loaded pistol on the seat of his car, a paper bag concealed in the waistband of his trousers and the hold-up note in his coat pocket.\n3. Robbery \u00a7 3 \u2014 evidence found in defendant\u2019s car \u2014 intent\nIn this prosecution for attempted common-law robbery, evidence relating to firearms found in defendant\u2019s car and a paper bag found concealed on his person was properly admitted for the purpose of showing defendant\u2019s intent.\nAppeal by defendant from McConnell, Judge, 31 May 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Guilford County.\nDefendant was indicted for attempted robbery and entered a plea of not guilty. The evidence tended to show the following. A few minutes before the regular closing hour, defendant entered a branch office of Home Federal Savings and Loan Association in Greensboro and asked to speak with the loan officer or manager. Upon being advised that the manager was not in, defendant pulled a note from his pocket and handed it to a teller. Handprinted on this note were the words, \u201cThis is a hold-up. Close door. Lock doors,\u201d and other instructions. The teller became frightened and handed the note to another teller. One of the tellers pushed a silent alarm button which was located under the counter. Another teller came out from the kitchen and was recognized by defendant as being a neighbor of his sister. Defendant stated that he was kidding, took his note and left the building. The tellers watched defendant enter a car at the rear of the building. Police arrived just as defendant pulled away. One of the tellers got in the police car which pursued defendant. At the time of his capture defendant was found to have a loaded pistol on the seat of his car, a paper bag concealed in the waistband of his trousers and the hold-up note in his coat pocket. Defendant testified that he was on the way to the liquor store and just thought he would pull a joke on the girls who worked for the savings and loan. He said that he thought some of his friends at a nearby service station would enjoy hearing about the story. From a verdict of guilty and judgment imposing an active prison sentence, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney William Lewis Sauls for the State.\nPublic Defender for the Eighteenth Judicial District Wallace C. Harrelson and Assistant Public Defender J. Dale Shepherd for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0154-01",
  "first_page_order": 180,
  "last_page_order": 183
}