{
  "id": 8551014,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALLEN LASSITER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lassiter",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 7214SC621",
  "first_page": "377",
  "last_page": "381",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 377"
    }
  ],
  "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": "136 S.E. 2d 595",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566138
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0162-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 839",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 565",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559236
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0565-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 844",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571880
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0306-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 458,
    "char_count": 8007,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1937869685226118e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7743053745604473
    },
    "sha256": "090e633a2f4d4c71d88d9c4b62d7f4e6d6fd84f4f0d9195ff3cb791a43318836",
    "simhash": "1:4ae5342826fd3bde",
    "word_count": 1406
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:31.279819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALLEN LASSITER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant assigns error to denial of his motion for a continuance made on the grounds that one of his witnesses, George Husketh, was absent from the State at the time of trial. \u201cA motion for continuance is ordinarily addressed to the discretion of the trial judge and his ruling thereon is not subject to review absent abuse of discretion.\u201d State v. Stepney, 280 N.C. 306, 185 S.E. 2d 844. None was here shown. The absent witness was not an eyewitness. He could testify only as a character witness for defendant and concerning certain statements which the State\u2019s witness, Elvira Watson, made to him as to events of the night of the robbery. Defendant has failed to show either that the trial judge abused discretion in denying his motion for a continuance or how he was prejudiced thereby.\nDefendant next assigns error to the overruling of his objections to questions which the solicitor asked of the prosecuting witness concerning statements which defendant made to her shortly prior to the robbery to the effect that he \u201cwas in trouble again\u201d and had \u201cjust shot a man on Enterprise Street.\u201d Defendant contends that this testimony was irrelevant to the issue of his guilt of the offense for which he was being tried and that it was prejudicial to him as tending to show that he was guilty of a criminal offense other than that for which he was being tried. \u201cIt is well settled that in the trial of one accused of a criminal offense, who has not testified as a witness in his own behalf, the State may not, over objection by defendant, .introduce evidence to show that the accused has committed another independent, separate criminal offense where such evidence has no other relevance to the case on trial than its tendency to show the character of the accused and his disposition to commit criminal offenses.\u201d State v. Perry, 275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E. 2d 839. But it is equally well settled that if such evidence \u201ctends to prove any other relevant fact it will not be excluded merely because it also shows him to have been guilty of an independent crime.\u201d Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 91, p. 210. Here, one of the essential elements of the offense for which defendant was being tried was the taking of property against the will of its owner by violence or putting her in fear. State v. Lawrence, 262 N.C. 162, 136 S.E. 2d 595. Eyidence that one charged with robbery told his victim shortly before the taking that he had \u201cjust shot a man\u201d was certainly relevant as showing a design on the part of defendant to put his victim in fear. That the victim may not have believed the statement and therefore was not rendered fearful by it does not destroy its relevancy to show an intent on the part of defendant to frighten his victim. There was no error in overruling defendant\u2019s objections to the solicitor\u2019s questions.\nDefendant\u2019s motions for nonsuit were properly overruled. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence disclosed that while defendant himself may not have offered violence to the victim, he entered her premises in company with two men who did, stood by while they choked her and threw her to the floor and while they threatened her life with a gun, \u201cpiled on\u201d the cash register with them while they took fifteen or twenty dollars from it, fled the premises immediately after they did, and shortly thereafter was found by the arresting officers in the company of one of the men. This evidence was amply sufficient to warrant the jury finding defendant was present, aiding and abetting, and that he was guilty of all essential elements of the crime for which he was tried.\nWe have carefully examined all of appellant\u2019s remaining assignments of error, all of which relate to the court\u2019s charge to the jury, and find them without merit. Considered as a whole, the charge was free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Thomas E. Kane for the State.",
      "Felix B. Clayton for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALLEN LASSITER\nNo. 7214SC621\n(Filed 25 October 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 91\u2014 denial of continuance \u2014 absent witness\nThe trial court in a robbery prosecution did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a continuance made on the ground that one of his witnesses was absent from the State at the time of the trial where the absent witness could testify only as a character witness for defendant and concerning certain statements which the victim made to him as to the events of the night of the robbery.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 34 \u2014 robbery case \u2014 evidence showing another crime \u2014 relevancy\nEvidence that a defendant charged with robbery told his victim shortly before the taking that he had \u201cjust shot a man\u201d was relevant as showing a design on the part of defendant to put his victim in fear.\n3. Robbery \u00a7 4\u2014 aiding and abetting in robbery \u2014 sufficiency of evidence The State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for submission to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of armed robbery where it tended to show that, while defendant himself may not have offered violence to the victim, he entered her premises in company with two men who did, stood by while they choked her and threw her to the floor and while they threatened her life with a gun, \u201cpiled on\u201d the cash register with them while they took money from it, fled the premises immediately after they did, and shortly thereafter was found by the arresting officers in the company of one of the men.\nAppeal by defendant from Cooper, Judge, 3 April 1972 Session of Superior Court held in DURHAM County.\nDefendant was tried on his plea of not guilty to an indictment charging armed robbery. The State\u2019s evidence in substance showed the following:\nBetween 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. on 21 January 1972 defendant and two other men, one David Gilliard and the other believed to be Bluford, entered \u201cElvira\u2019s Blue Dinette,\u201d a cafe operated by Elvira Watson in Durham. Elvira had known defendant previously. Defendant left a message with her for George Husketh, saying: \u201cTell George I am in trouble again, he will have to come up there and get me. ... I just shot a man on Enterprise Street.\u201d Elvira expressed doubt, but defendant assured her it was true, saying that he shot the man because \u201c[h]e asked me for a cigarette and I told him I didn\u2019t have one, and he jumped on me to take my cigarettes from me, and I shot him.\u201d The three men then left, but returned about ten minutes later. Defendant asked Elvira for a beer. When she turned to get it, she felt Gilliard\u2019s fingers \u201ccrammed down\u201d her throat. Gilliard slung her to the floor. When she started screaming, Gilliard told Bluford, who had what looked like a sawed-off gun, to shoot her. She screamed, \u201cHenry (another name for defendant) don\u2019t let him kill me, don\u2019t let him kill me.\u201d\nElvira testified that then \u201cthey\u201d dived on the cash register, taking fifteen to. twenty dollars, that she \u201ccouldn\u2019t see whose hands were actually going into the cash register, but all three of them piled on it, including Mr. Lassiter,\u201d and that Gilliard and Bluford then ran out. Defendant stayed behind and said: \u201cMiss Elvira, call the police.\u201d She told him to close the door so that she could call, but when he got to the front door, he ran out. Elvira did not know whether defendant got any of the money, but he was standing there with the other two. He did not touch her and he did not have a gun. When the police came, she named defendant as one of the robbers.\nDefendant was arrested shortly after the robbery when the police found him with Gilliard sitting at a table in a piccolo room at a bootleg house, the first place the officers went in trying to locate him. He denied having been at Elvira\u2019s, but on the following day admitted having been there with Gilliard and a man he called \u201cButch Odom,\u201d though he denied knowing anything about a robbery.\nDefendant offered no evidence. The jury found defendant guilty of common-law robbery. From sentence imposed, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Thomas E. Kane for the State.\nFelix B. Clayton for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0377-01",
  "first_page_order": 401,
  "last_page_order": 405
}