{ "id": 9081109, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT ARNOLD GAY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gay", "decision_date": "2002-07-16", "docket_number": "No. COA01-795", "first_page": "530", "last_page": "535", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "151 N.C. App. 530" } ], "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": "249 S.E.2d 387", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 S.E.2d 510", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "515-16", "parenthetical": "quoting Currence v. Hardin, 296 N.C. 96, 249 S.E.2d 387 (1978)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564183 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "628", "parenthetical": "quoting Currence v. Hardin, 296 N.C. 96, 249 S.E.2d 387 (1978)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 S.E.2d 53", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "60" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4694660 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "370" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 S.E.2d 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held use of inoperable air pistol to strike victim, which caused a black eye was sufficient evidence to instruct the jury on robbery with a dangerous weapon" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 N.C. App. 777", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524162 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held use of inoperable air pistol to strike victim, which caused a black eye was sufficient evidence to instruct the jury on robbery with a dangerous weapon" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/60/0777-01" ] }, { "cite": "453 S.E.2d 185", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held that placement of a pellet gun against a victim's back in the course of a robbery was sufficient to instruct the. jury on robbery with a dangerous weapon" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2520644, 2521382, 2520494, 2517361, 2518303 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held that placement of a pellet gun against a victim's back in the course of a robbery was sufficient to instruct the. jury on robbery with a dangerous weapon" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0671-03", "/nc/338/0671-02", "/nc/338/0671-04", "/nc/338/0671-05", "/nc/338/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "449 S.E.2d 24", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held that placement of a pellet gun against a victim's back in the course of a robbery was sufficient to instruct the. jury on robbery with a dangerous weapon" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N.C. App. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524822 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held that placement of a pellet gun against a victim's back in the course of a robbery was sufficient to instruct the. jury on robbery with a dangerous weapon" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/116/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "510 S.E.2d 659", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held that gasoline thrown onto a victim's face with matches later found on the ground constituted the offense of robbery with a dangerous weapon" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659873, 1659717, 1659783, 1659791, 1659775 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held that gasoline thrown onto a victim's face with matches later found on the ground constituted the offense of robbery with a dangerous weapon" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0503-04", "/nc/348/0503-02", "/nc/348/0503-01", "/nc/348/0503-03", "/nc/348/0503-05" ] }, { "cite": "497 S.E.2d 831", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held that gasoline thrown onto a victim's face with matches later found on the ground constituted the offense of robbery with a dangerous weapon" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 N.C. App. 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11649129 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held that gasoline thrown onto a victim's face with matches later found on the ground constituted the offense of robbery with a dangerous weapon" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/129/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 S.E.2d 367", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held that use of glass soda bottle in the course of sexual assault and robbery was sufficient evidence to support an armed robbery with a dangerous weapon jury instruction" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560971 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "held that use of glass soda bottle in the course of sexual assault and robbery was sufficient evidence to support an armed robbery with a dangerous weapon jury instruction" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E.2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 690", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8576076 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "699-700", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0690-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 S.E.2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "578" }, { "page": "578" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574048 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "489" }, { "page": "491" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0484-01" ] }, { "cite": "560 S.E.2d 776", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "782", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 294", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220055 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "303", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E.2d 235", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575271 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E.2d 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561269 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0649-01" ] }, { "cite": "304 S.E.2d 754", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4704355, 4704805, 4710377, 4706352, 4704729 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0675-05", "/nc/308/0675-04", "/nc/308/0675-02", "/nc/308/0675-03", "/nc/308/0675-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.E.2d 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 N.C. App. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521551 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/62/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.C. 749", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698800 ], "year": 1884, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/90/0749-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 L. Ed. 2d 114", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "414 U.S. 874", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11762922, 11762669, 11763119, 11762751, 11762997, 11762845, 11763196, 11762557, 11762495 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/414/0874-06", "/us/414/0874-03", "/us/414/0874-08", "/us/414/0874-04", "/us/414/0874-07", "/us/414/0874-05", "/us/414/0874-09", "/us/414/0874-02", "/us/414/0874-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S.E.2d 297", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558380 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "335 S.E.2d 506", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "510", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Vestal, 283 N.C. 249, 195 S.E.2d 297, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874, 38 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1973); State v. Holt, 90 N.C. 749 (1884); Cunningham v. Brown, 62 N.C. App. 239, 302 S.E.2d 822, disc. rev. denied, 308 N.C. 675, 304 S.E.2d 754 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 N.C. App. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523896 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Vestal, 283 N.C. 249, 195 S.E.2d 297, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874, 38 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1973); State v. Holt, 90 N.C. 749 (1884); Cunningham v. Brown, 62 N.C. App. 239, 302 S.E.2d 822, disc. rev. denied, 308 N.C. 675, 304 S.E.2d 754 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/77/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 S.E.2d 694", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623030 ], "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "344-45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "545 S.E.2d 724", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 681", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684881, 685105, 685010, 684922, 685020 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0681-03", "/nc/352/0681-05", "/nc/352/0681-01", "/nc/352/0681-02", "/nc/352/0681-04" ] }, { "cite": "530 S.E.2d 859", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "864", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N.C. App. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11079314 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "259", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/138/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "169", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559773 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78-79", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E.2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "651" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560587 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0062-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 705, "char_count": 11519, "ocr_confidence": 0.701, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.3381637802263606e-07, "percentile": 0.7918702982297423 }, "sha256": "7a5ac281f1e651ac8ad7f149af2fd3c0b43de291b3e14316e6eafd1b414682a6", "simhash": "1:87abf822f6bb185e", "word_count": 1922 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:19.620477+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge McGEE concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT ARNOLD GAY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nRobert Arnold Gay (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from the trial court\u2019s entry of judgment after a jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon. We find no error.\nI. Facts\nThe evidence at trial tended to show that on 11 June 1999, Jennifer Ellen Barnes (\u201cBarnes\u201d) was working at Cookies by Design in Charlotte, North Carolina. Cookies by Design is located in a shopping center adjacent to various other stores. At approximately 6:00 p.m., Barnes prepared to close the store. She turned off the lights and exited the front door wearing a backpack that contained $24,000.00 in cash that she had recently received from her father\u2019s estate. Barnes immediately noticed a person, later identified as defendant, standing at the corner of the building. She observed that he had a red face and \u201ccompletely bloodshot\u201d eyes. Defendant wore a \u201csock hat,\u201d a long-sleeve sweatshirt, and long pants. Barnes testified that she thought defendant\u2019s dress was highly unusual since it was a hot summer afternoon. Barnes turned to lock the front glass door. Defendant approached her and asked if she had any spare change. Barnes looked at defendant and said \u201c[n]o, I don\u2019t have anything.\u201d She looked at defendant for approximately ten to fifteen seconds. Barnes again returned to locking the front door. With her back toward defendant, defendant wrapped his left arm around her neck and placed a \u201cstun gun\u201d up against her neck. Defendant took Barnes\u2019 backpack with the money inside and fled the scene. Five days later, defendant appeared inside the store where Barnes worked and asked for a co-worker. Barnes telephoned the police and defendant was eventually arrested. Defendant was tried on 15 January 2001. Defendant offered evidence, testified at trial, and denied robbing Barnes. The jury found defendant guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court sentenced defendant to a minimum of seventy months and a maximum of ninety-three months, and ordered him to pay $24,000.00 in restitution. Defendant appeals.\nII. Issues\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) failing to dismiss the charges for insufficiency of evidence, and (2) excluding testimony of the victim\u2019s reputation for untruthfulness. Assignments of error set out in the record by defendant and not argued are deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(5) (2001).\nIII. Sufficiency of the Evidence\nDefendant contends the State presented no evidence that the \u201cstun gun allegedly used by [him] was a dangerous weapon that endangered or threatened [Barnes\u2019] life.\u201d Defendant claims that the trial court should have dismissed the charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon, and the jury should have been instructed on common law robbery only. We disagree.\nWhen ruling on a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court determines whether substantial evidence exists for each essential element of the offense charged, and whether defendant is the perpetrator of the offense. State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 65-66, 296 S.E.2d 649, 651 (1982). \u201cSubstantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u201d State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980) (citations omitted).\n\u201cIn ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court must view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence.\u201d State v. McAllister, 138 N.C. App. 252, 259, 530 S.E.2d 859, 864, appeal dismissed, 352 N.C. 681, 545 S.E.2d 724 (2000) (citation omitted). \u201cIf there is more than a scintilla of competent evidence to support the allegations in the warrant or indictment, it is the court\u2019s duty to submit the case to the jury.\u201d State v. Horner, 248 N.C. 342, 344-45, 103 S.E.2d 694, 696 (1958). \u201cIn \u2018borderline\u2019 or close cases, our courts have consistently expressed a preference for submitting issues to the jury, both in reliance on the common sense and fairness of the twelve and to avoid unnecessary appeals.\u201d State v. Hamilton, 77 N.C. App. 506, 512, 335 S.E.2d 506, 510 (1985) (citing State v. Vestal, 283 N.C. 249, 195 S.E.2d 297, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874, 38 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1973); State v. Holt, 90 N.C. 749 (1884); Cunningham v. Brown, 62 N.C. App. 239, 302 S.E.2d 822, disc. rev. denied, 308 N.C. 675, 304 S.E.2d 754 (1983)). Once substantial evidence is before the jury, any conflicts and discrepancies are for the jury to resolve and do not supply basis for dismissal. Id. (citing State v. Greene, 278 N.C. 649, 180 S.E.2d 789 (1971); State v. Bolin, 281 N.C. 415, 189 S.E.2d 235 (1972)).\nThe elements of robbery with a dangerous weapon are: (1) the unlawful attempt to take or taking of personal property from a person or presence, (2) by use or threatened use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, (3) whereby the life of the person is threatened or endangered. State v. Mann, 355 N.C. 294, 303, 560 S.E.2d 776, 782 (2002) (citations omitted). Defendant contends that elements two and three are unsatisfied. He argues that use of the stun gun was not a dangerous weapon that threatened or endangered Barnes\u2019 life. We disagree.\n\u201cThe element of danger or threat to the life of the victim is the essence of the offense.\u201d State v. Gibbons, 303 N.C. 484, 489, 279 S.E.2d 574, 578 (1981). \u201cPrerequisite to conviction for armed robbery . . . the jury must find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the life of the victim was endangered or threatened by the use or threatened use of \u2018firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement or means.\u2019 \u201d State v. Covington, 273 N.C. 690, 699-700, 161 S.E.2d 140, 147 (1968) (emphasis in original). The offense requires \u201can act with the weapon which endangers or threatens the life of the victim . . . Gibbons, 303 N.C. at 491, 279 S.E.2d at 578.\nDefendant admits that a stun gun can be a dangerous weapon, depending on how it is used. The evidence tended to show that defendant \u201cput his left arm around [Barnes\u2019] neck and attempted to use a stun gun which was in his right hand. Mrs. Barnes began struggling with [defendant] and, as she fell to the ground, [he] ripped the back pack off her back and ran away.\u201d\nWe hold that when defendant wrapped his arm around Barnes\u2019 neck, attempted to \u201cshock\u201d her with his stun gun, and ripped her back pack from her shoulder, defendant\u2019s actions constituted the use of a dangerous weapon which threatened Barnes\u2019 life. Cf. State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978) (held that use of glass soda bottle in the course of sexual assault and robbery was sufficient evidence to support an armed robbery with a dangerous weapon jury instruction); State v. Cockerham, 129 N.C. App. 221, 497 S.E.2d 831, disc. rev. denied, 348 N.C. 503, 510 S.E.2d 659 (1998) (held that gasoline thrown onto a victim\u2019s face with matches later found on the ground constituted the offense of robbery with a dangerous weapon); State v. Westall, 116 N.C. App. 534, 449 S.E.2d 24, disc. rev. denied, 338 N.C. 671, 453 S.E.2d 185 (1994) (held that placement of a pellet gun against a victim\u2019s back in the course of a robbery was sufficient to instruct the. jury on robbery with a dangerous weapon); State v. Funderburk, 60 N.C. App. 777, 299 S.E.2d 822 (1983) (held use of inoperable air pistol to strike victim, which caused a black eye was sufficient evidence to instruct the jury on robbery with a dangerous weapon). This assignment of error is overruled.\nIV. Excluded Testimony\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred by sustaining the State\u2019s objection when defendant attempted to ask Una Walsh, Barnes\u2019 supervisor, on direct examination about Barnes\u2019 \u201cpoor reputation for truthfulness with her co-workers.\u201d\nThe following exchange took place at trial between defense counsel and Una Walsh:\nQ. Did you form an opinion about [Barnes\u2019] truthfulness?\nA. I didn\u2019t believe everything she said.\nQ. Can you answer this question that you formed an opinion or not?\nA. Yeah.\nQ. And what was that opinion?\nState. Objection.\nCourt. Overruled.\nA. Well, she was very dramatic, and she liked to carry on and disrupt work. And\u2014\nState. Objection.\nCourt. Sustained as not being \u2014 you\u2019re not responsive.\nQ. What was you opinion as to her honesty or truthfulness?\nA. I didn\u2019t think she was honest.\nQ. When did [Barnes] leave work at Cookies By Design?\nA. I think it was like the end of August.\nDefendant then attempted to elicit specific instances of conduct about the circumstances surrounding Barnes\u2019 leaving her employment and Barnes\u2019 co-workers\u2019 opinions concerning her reputation for truthfulness. The trial court sustained the objections. Defendant did not make a proffer regarding what the excluded testimony would have revealed.\n\u201c[I]n order for a party to preserve for appellate review the exclusion of evidence, the significance of the excluded evidence must be made to appear in the record and a specific offer of proof is required unless the significance of the evidence is obvious from the record.\u201d State v. Simpson, 314 N.C. 359, 370, 334 S.E.2d 53, 60 (1985). See also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 103 (2001); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1446(a) (2001). When evidence is excluded, \u201cthe essential content or substance of the witness\u2019s testimony is required\u201d before we can determine whether exclusion of evidence was prejudicial. State v. Satterfield, 300 N.C. 621, 628, 268 S.E.2d 510, 515-16 (1980) (quoting Currence v. Hardin, 296 N.C. 96, 249 S.E.2d 387 (1978)).\nHere, Ms. Walsh gave her opinion of Barnes\u2019 truthfulness. Defendant made no offer of proof concerning what Ms. Walsh\u2019s answers to the excluded question might have been, nor is it obvious from the record what the excluded testimony would have shown. We hold that defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review, and that this issue is not properly before us. This assignment of error is dismissed.\nV. Conclusion\nWe hold that defendant received a trial by a jury of his peers before an able judge free from errors he assigned and argued.\nNo error.\nChief Judge EAGLES and Judge McGEE concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General John F Oates, Jr., for the State.", "Noell P. Tin, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT ARNOLD GAY\nNo. COA01-795\n(Filed 16 July 2002)\n1. Robbery\u2014 dangerous weapon \u2014 motion to dismiss \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe trial court did not err by failing to dismiss the charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon even though defendant contends that use of a stun gun was not a dangerous weapon that threatened or endangered the victim\u2019s life, because defendant\u2019s actions constituted the use of a dangerous weapon which threatened the victim\u2019s life when defendant wrapped his arm around the victim\u2019s neck, attempted to shock her with his stun gun, and ripped her backpack from her shoulder.\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to make offer of proof\nAlthough defendant contends the trial court erred in a robbery with a dangerous weapon case by excluding testimony of the victim\u2019s reputation for untruthfulness, defendant did not preserve this issue for appellate review because: (1) defendant failed to make an offer of proof concerning the answers to the excluded questions; and (2) it is not obvious from the record what the excluded testimony would have shown.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 18 January 2001 by Judge W. Robert Bell in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 May 2002.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General John F Oates, Jr., for the State.\nNoell P. Tin, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0530-01", "first_page_order": 560, "last_page_order": 565 }