{
  "id": 8554264,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILBERT RICHARDSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Richardson",
  "decision_date": "1968-10-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 6811SC281",
  "first_page": "523",
  "last_page": "526",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 523"
    }
  ],
  "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": "97 S.E. 2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617692
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "663"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0661-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 5623,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3266558591939842e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6280493573177433
    },
    "sha256": "9a8065f3cff5f4fb373fb5ac953b2f7e00f564c07fb9afdc6f11709e19a166b8",
    "simhash": "1:8b25c59772034582",
    "word_count": 1032
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:15:57.624547+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallard, C.J., and Campbell, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILBERT RICHARDSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Morris, J.\nDefendant brings forward as his assignment of error the failure of the court to grant his motion to dismiss at the end of the State\u2019s evidence. He contends that there was not sufficient evidence of robbery by firearms to justify submission of the case to the jury.\nIvey James McCullen testified for the State, in substance, as follows: That he is a cab driver for Selma Cab Company; that on 13 January 1968, he was seated in the driver\u2019s seat of his cab which was parked near the cab stand in a well-lighted area; that the defendant came up and motioned for him to come out; that he picked up defendant who told the witness that he wanted to go to Ray\u2019s Pure Oil on Highway 70; that when they got there, defendant told him to go up 70; that when they had gone a short distance, the defendant directed him to turn left on a dirt road; that he kept asking defendant \u201chow much further do you want to go\u201d; that defendant replied \u201coh, right down the road here, my daddy lives right down the road; it isn\u2019t far\u201d; that after they had proceeded down the dirt road a mile or so, defendant told him \u201cthis is a hold up; stop and you won\u2019t get hurt\u201d; that this was about 8 o\u2019clock at night; that he stopped the car, left the headlights on and the motor running; that defendant cracked the door to the car; that defendant pulled a pistol from his right hand pocket and told the witness to let him, the defendant, have the money, saying \u201cnow go in your pocket and don\u2019t start nothing, ease in your pocket\u201d; that after the witness handed defendant the currency from his billfold, defendant asked if he had any change; that witness then gave him the change he had in his pocket; that defendant asked if witness had any more money; that when witness replied that he did not, defendant said \u201cIf I knew you were telling me a lie I would shoot you right now\u201d; that the total -amount of money was between $70.00 and $75.00; that after defendant got the money, he continued to hold the gun on witness, \u201ceased the right hand door open and got out and said \u2018Now, drive and don\u2019t look back\u2019 \u201d; that at that time defendant had the gun in his hand pointing it at the witness; that witness drove off as quickly as he \u25a0could get away, went out to another road and stopped at a house to -ask directions to get back to the highway; that he came upon two .highway patrolmen who told him to go back to Selma and report the robbery to the deputy sheriff, which he did; that he next saw defendant on the next day when Mr. Cobb brought the defendant to \"his home. On cross-examination the witness testified that defendant \u25a0was riding in the front seat with the witness; that he had seen defendant before in passing but did not know his name; that it was light in the cab when the door was opened; that he knew defendant was the man he picked up because he knew him when he saw him; \"that he did not recall defendant\u2019s having been in his cab before; that \"he told Mr. Cobb what the man looked like but not his name because he didn\u2019t know his name; that he told the officers what kind of coat \u25a0defendant had on and that defendant had on the same clothes when he saw him the next day; that he knew the man\u2019s face and knew how \"he talked; that he saw the man\u2019s face the night of the robbery; that \u2019he didn\u2019t know how long the gun was but that it was a \u201cshiny looking pistol\u201d, medium size; that \u201cI know his finger from the gun, I \"think; I think I would\u201d; that he told Mr. Cobb that defendant was \u2022the same man who robbed him.\nMr. Braxton Hinton, deputy sheriff, testified that Mr. McCullen \u2022described the man who had robbed him.\nMr. Tom Greene testified that he lives about a hundred yards \u2022off Highway 70; that he knows the defendant and had known him for 15 years; that on 13 January 1968, defendant came to his home \u00a1about 8:30 and paid him $3.00 to carry him to Smithfield; that he did \u2022carry him to Smithfield; that defendant had on an overcoat, cap, white shirt and tie.\nThe well-settled rule on motion to nonsuit in a criminal prosecution is that \u201cthe evidence must be taken in the light most favor\u2022able to the State, and if when so taken there is any competent evidence to support the allegation of the bill of indictment, the case is one for the jury. And, on such motion the State is entitled to the 'benefit of every reasonable inference that may be fairly deduced from the evidence.\u201d State v. Block, 245 N.C. 661, 663, 97 S.E. 2d 243.\nThe court correctly denied defendant\u2019s motion. The evidence-was plenary to justify submission to the jury.\nNo error.\nMallard, C.J., and Campbell, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Morris, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul D. Grady, Jr., for defendant appellant.",
      "Attorney General T. W. Bruton by Deputy Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILBERT RICHARDSON\nNo. 6811SC281\n(Filed 9 October 1968)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 104\u2014 motion for nonsuit \u2014 consideration of evidence\nOn motion to nonsuit in a criminal prosecution, the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of every inference fairly deducible therefrom, and if when so taken there is any competent evidence to support the allegation in the indictment, the case is one for the jury.\n2. Robbery \u00a7 4\u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe evidence is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of robbery with firearms.\nAppeal by defendant from Canaday, J., February 1968 Session of JohNSTon Superior Court.\nDefendant was tried under a valid bill of indictment charging him with armed robbery. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and from judgment entered on the verdict, the defendant appealed.\nPaul D. Grady, Jr., for defendant appellant.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton by Deputy Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0523-01",
  "first_page_order": 543,
  "last_page_order": 546
}