{
  "id": 8548528,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GRADY WILSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1972-04-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 7226SC160",
  "first_page": "256",
  "last_page": "259",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 256"
    }
  ],
  "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": "167 S.E. 2d 24",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553792
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0407-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 235",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571126
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0549-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S.E. 2d 668",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547526
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 17",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560736
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0484-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 410,
    "char_count": 7132,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.557,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.02847802651471e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37366271160982745
    },
    "sha256": "e3d174e427d92146fc4b7e61254a9817d2b6b704172a526ab55615b2e2bba978",
    "simhash": "1:bfe744af673c771f",
    "word_count": 1246
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GRADY WILSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nThrough his first assignment of error defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, contending that it does not show that he was the person who allegedly robbed the prosecuting witness and that it is insufficient to establish the element of felonious intent. This assignment of error is overruled.\nThe prosecuting witness, Richard Howard Doctor, testified that he saw defendant and two unidentified males at a poolroom in Charlotte on 7 May 1971. He had seen defendant on other occasions but did not know his name. Upon learning that Doctor had been in Charlotte only a short while, the three men offered to \u201cshow him around.\u201d The men rode to a play area near some apartments where they got out of the car and stayed for about 45 minutes to an hour. One of the men then suggested that they go to his girl friend\u2019s house in the Double Oaks section. The driver of the car took them to a place near Double Oaks school. They were to walk from there to the girl friend\u2019s house. Doctor described what thereafter took place as follows:\n\u201cThis was about 9:00 or 9:15 p.m., and we were walking down through the school yard. It was very dark there and there weren\u2019t any lights around. The defendant, Wilson, pulled a chrome pistol, a 22 or 32, and put it to my forehead. I could see it in his hand, and I am sure it was a pistol. He held it directly to my temple and put pressure on it. Wilson then said \u2018all right, give it up,\u2019 and the other fellow went through my pockets. He, the other fellow, took my change, keys, and the bills in my wallet. I had at least $230.00 in my wallet at the time, because I started out that day with $278.00, which was my pay check plus the $10.00 I had, and I bought two shirts for $15.00, and I played a few games of pool.\u201d\nThe in-court identification testimony of the prosecuting witness was direct and unequivocal. No assertion is made that his testimony was in any way tainted by an illegal out-of-court identification or that any illegal out-of-court identification was made. On the contrary, the record shows that the out-of-court identification was made before defendant was placed in custody. The prosecuting witness testified: \u201cI next saw Wilson about a week later. I had seen him in the poolroom, and I figured he would be back again, so every day when I got off work I went to the poolroom to see if I saw him, and one day I did. Then I went to the square, and told the policeman that the man who had robbed me was in the poolroom. Thereafter, that man was arrested.\u201d The witness also stated: \u201cThere is no doubt in my mind about Grady Wilson, because I remember him well having seen him before. I didn\u2019t know his name, but I had seen him in the poolroom occasionally.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s contention that this evidence was insufficient to go to the jury on the question of identification is totally without merit. His contention that the State failed to present sufficient evidence on the question of felonious intent is likewise without merit.\nIntent is a mental attitude, which seldom can be proved by direct evidence, but must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred. State v. Little, 278 N.C. 484, 180 S.E. 2d 17. Here the evidence tends to show that defendant placed a gun to the victim\u2019s head and stated \u201call right, give it up\u201d; whereupon, defendant\u2019s companion proceeded to remove money and other items from the victim\u2019s pocket. This evidence is sufficient to permit an inference that the money was taken with the intent on defendant\u2019s part to deprive the owner of the property permanently and to convert it to his own use. State v. Montgomery, 12 N.C. App. 94, 182 S.E. 2d 668.\nDefendant\u2019s final contention is that the court erred in failing to submit to the jury the lesser included offense of non-felonious larceny. It is unnecessary to instruct the jury as to an included offense of a lesser degree where there is no evidence from which the jury could find that the lesser included offense was committed. State v. Carnes, 279 N.C. 549, 184 S.E. 2d 235. The mere contention that the jury might accept the State\u2019s evidence in part and might reject it in part will not suffice. State v. Bailey, 4 N.C. App. 407, 167 S.E. 2d 24. We find no evidence in this record, and defendant calls our attention to none, which would support a conviction for non-felonious larceny.\nIn the entire trial, we find\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GRAHAM, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Melvin and Assistant Attorney General Ray for the State.",
      "Hamel & Cannon by Thomas R. Cannon for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GRADY WILSON\nNo. 7226SC160\n(Filed 26 April 1972)\n1. Robbery \u00a7 4\u2014 identification evidence \u2014 sufficiency\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to go to the jury on the question of defendant\u2019s identification as one of the persons who committed an armed robbery where the victim testified that he had occasionally seen defendant in a poolroom but did not know his name, that he left the poolroom with defendant and two other men and was in their company for 45 minutes to an hour before he was robbed by defendant and one of the men, that the victim again saw defendant in the poolroom a week later and notified the police, who arrested defendant, and the victim positively and unequivocally identified defendant at the trial as one of the robbers.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 2\u2014 proof of intent\nIntent is a mental attitude which seldom can be proved by direct evidence but must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred.\n3. Robbery \u00a7 4\u2014 armed robbery \u2014 felonious intent \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence tending to show that defendant placed a gun to the victim\u2019s head and stated, \u201call right, give it up,\u201d whereupon defendant\u2019s companion proceeded to remove money and other items from the victim\u2019s pocket, held sufficient to permit an inference that the money was taken with the intent on defendant\u2019s part to deprive the owner of the property permanently and to convert it to his own use.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 115\u2014 necessity for instructing on lesser included offenses\nIt is unnecessary to instruct the jury as to a lesser included offense where there is no evidence from which the jury could find that the lesser included oifense was committed, the mere contention that the jury might accept the State\u2019s evidence in part and reject it in part being insufficient to require such an instruction.\n5. Robbery \u00a7 5\u2014 failure to submit non-felonious larceny\nThe evidence in an armed robbery prosecution did not require the court to submit to the jury the lesser included offense of non-felonious larceny.\nAppeal by defendant from Martin, Judge, 30 August 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Mecklenburg County.\nDefendant was tried under a bill of indictment, proper in form, charging him with the felony of armed robbery. The court instructed the jury that they could find defendant guilty of armed robbery, guilty of common law robbery or not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of \u201cguilty of armed robbery.\u201d Defendant appeals from judgment entered on the verdict imposing a prison sentence of 12 years.\nAttorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Melvin and Assistant Attorney General Ray for the State.\nHamel & Cannon by Thomas R. Cannon for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0256-01",
  "first_page_order": 282,
  "last_page_order": 285
}