{
  "id": 8549348,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL LEE TORAIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Torain",
  "decision_date": "1973-11-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7315SC805",
  "first_page": "69",
  "last_page": "70",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 69"
    }
  ],
  "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": "153 S.E. 2d 741",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565060
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 S.E. 2d 225",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 734",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563110
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0734-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 4097,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.613,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6835381988092943e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8268841156376299
    },
    "sha256": "2cc86b4676d9a7c50e5bd3fa8b1d89d36406dcae7246d30e2497b9356483c6de",
    "simhash": "1:9460d42c3da61266",
    "word_count": 695
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL LEE TORAIN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the denial of his motions for judgment of nonsuit. The evidence, considered in the light most favorable, to the State, tended to show:\nAround 8:45 p.m. on Friday, 25 August 1972, defendant, accompanied by Keith and Jackie Graves, drove an automobile to the grocery store of Julian Ray on Highway 54 near Carrboro. The purpose in going to the store was \u201cto get some money.\u201d Defendant stopped the car at the store and Keith and Jackie Graves entered the store, one with a sawed-off shotgun and the other with a pistol. The two who entered the store forced Ray to open the cash register and give them the money which was in it. They also took Ray\u2019s wallet. The cash register contained approximately $300 and the wallet between $500 and $600. Defendant stayed with the car. Later that night defendant and Jackie Graves were together and were stopped by Burlington police en route \u201cto the bus station.\u201d While riding in the police car, Jackie Graves hid the money under the front seat of the car and, pursuant to information provided by defendant on 2 September 1972, the money was found in the Burlington police car on 5 September 1972.\nIt is well settled that when two or more persons aid and abet each other in the commission of a crime, all are principals and equally guilty. State v. Sellers, 266 N.C. 734, 147 S.E. 2d 225 (1966); State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25, 153 S.E. 2d 741 (1967). To be guilty as an aider and abettor, a defendant\u2019s actual presence is not necessary as he may be constructively present. State v. Sellers, supra; State v. Bell, supra.\nIn the case at bar, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to establish his presence at or near Ray\u2019s store at the time of the robbery. We reject this contention. The evidence tending to show that defendant drove the automobile that carried the Graves men to the store, that to the knowledge of defendant the Graves men entered the store, one of them armed with a shotgun and the other with a pistol, that defendant \u201cstayed with the car,\u201d that later that night they were together en route to the bus station when Burlington police \u201cstopped\u201d them and that defendant told police several days later where they could find the stolen money, was sufficient to support an inference that defendant was constructively present at the time of the robbery. The assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s other assignments of error relate to the trial court\u2019s instructions to the jury. After carefully reviewing the instructions, with particular reference to those assigned as error, we conclude that the instructions were free from prejudicial error.\nDefendant received a fair trial and the sentence imposed was within the limits provided by statute.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Norman L. Sloan, Associate Attorney, for the State.",
      "Haywood, Denny & Miller by James H. Johnson III, and William N. Farrell, Jr., for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL LEE TORAIN\nNo. 7315SC805\n(Filed 28 November 1973)\nRobbery \u00a7 4\u2014 driver of getaway car \u2014 presence at robbery scene\nThe State\u2019s evidence in an armed robbery case was sufficient to establish defendant\u2019s presence at or near the store that was robbed where it tended to show that defendant, accompanied by two companions, drove an automobile to a store \u201cto get some money,\u201d that defendant\u2019s companions entered the store and robbed the proprietor by use of a shotgun and pistol, that defendant \u201cstayed with the car,\u201d that later that night defendant and one companion were together en route to the bus station when the police stopped them and that defendant told the police several days later where they could find the stolen money.\nOn certiorari to review judgment of Cooper, Judge, 30 October 1972 Session Superior Court held in ORANGE County.\nIn a bill of indictment, proper in form, defendant was charged with armed robbery. He entered a plea of not guilty, was found guilty as charged and from judgment imposing prison sentence of twenty years with recommendation for work release, he appeals.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Norman L. Sloan, Associate Attorney, for the State.\nHaywood, Denny & Miller by James H. Johnson III, and William N. Farrell, Jr., for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0069-01",
  "first_page_order": 97,
  "last_page_order": 98
}