{
  "id": 4356802,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LACY BARNHART",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Barnhart",
  "decision_date": "2012-04-17",
  "docket_number": "No. COA11-623",
  "first_page": "125",
  "last_page": "130",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 N.C. App. 125"
    }
  ],
  "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": "668 S.E.2d 383",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12642206
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "386"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/668/0383-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "617 S.E.2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633691
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "274",
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/617/0271-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "677 S.E.2d 455",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "\"Incriminating circumstances relevant to constructive possession [have included] . . . evidence that defendant . . . was the only person who could have placed the contraband in the position where it was found\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "363 N.C. 367",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4151550
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "\"Incriminating circumstances relevant to constructive possession [have included] . . . evidence that defendant . . . was the only person who could have placed the contraband in the position where it was found\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/363/0367-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N.C. App. 712",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4161659
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "716"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/193/0712-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "678 S.E.2d 592",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "594",
          "parenthetical": "\"Unless a defendant has exclusive possession of the place where the contraband is found, the State must show other incriminating circumstances sufficient for the jury to find a defendant had constructive possession\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "363 N.C. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4150522
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "99",
          "parenthetical": "\"Unless a defendant has exclusive possession of the place where the contraband is found, the State must show other incriminating circumstances sufficient for the jury to find a defendant had constructive possession\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/363/0096-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 S.E.2d 718",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "719"
        },
        {
          "page": "720-21"
        },
        {
          "page": "719"
        },
        {
          "page": "719"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 N.C. 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4760004
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "177"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/309/0176-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 800",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3795437
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "804",
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0800-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "677 S.E.2d 444",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "449",
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "363 N.C. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4151610
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "328",
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/363/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "611 S.E.2d 794",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "827",
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3799490
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "374",
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0328-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 584,
    "char_count": 13420,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.456583025697791e-08,
      "percentile": 0.279376133512031
    },
    "sha256": "8b7be55368b7332f8321510d3c279e5e95b040ec7a35fc74aea143d60f60af98",
    "simhash": "1:0eb568246762ac4a",
    "word_count": 2127
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:53.925153+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ERVIN and BEASLEY concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LACY BARNHART"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "THIGPEN, Judge.\nLacy Barnhart (\u201cDefendant\u201d) appeals from judgments convicting him of first-degree burglary, larceny after breaking and entering, and assault on a female, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to show that Defendant was the perpetrator of the offenses. We find no error in the trial court\u2019s denial of Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nThe evidence of record tends to show the following: At approximately 11:00 p.m. on 8 April 2010, Jeanne Morgan (\u201cMorgan\u201d), who lived alone, locked all of the doors to her home in Hoke County, North Carolina, and went to bed. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on 9 April 2010, Morgan was awakened by a male intruder lying on top of her and pinning her to the bed. Morgan began screaming, and the intruder told her to \u201c[s]hut the [expletive deleted] up[.]\u201d Morgan complied.\nThe intruder then dragged Morgan out of bed and demanded that Morgan show him where she kept her jewelry and money. The intruder would not allow Morgan to turn on the light, and he held Morgan tightly by wrapping his left arm around her neck. Morgan showed him where she kept her jewelry case and a fifty-dollar bill, which the intruder took. The intruder then told Morgan to return to bed and remain there until after she heard the intruder leave. Morgan again complied, after which she called the police. Morgan later discovered that her cell phone and a small change purse from her pocketbook, which she kept in the living room, were also missing.\nMorgan testified at trial that the intruder was wearing gloves, and because of his \u201cdeeper voice[,]\u201d she believed the man was \u201can older person, not a young person[.]\u201d Morgan also testified that although she never saw his face, she did see that the intruder was African-American. Morgan said she and the intruder were approximately the same height.\nOfficer James Fowler (\u201cOfficer Fowler\u201d) of the Raeford Police Department testified that on 9 April 2010 at approximately 1:00 a.m. he responded to a call concerning a breaking and entering. Shortly thereafter, he arrived at Morgan\u2019s home. Officer Fowler and other officers of the Raeford Police Department began canvassing the neighborhood, searching for the intruder and other evidence pertaining to the breaking and entering.\nAt approximately 3:00 a.m., Officer Fowler stopped by a twenty-four hour convenience store located near Morgan\u2019s home. Officer Fowler asked the store clerk to be on the lookout for anyone attempting to sell jewelry or \u201csuspiciously walking around.\u201d Officer Fowler returned to the convenience store between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m. after receiving a call about a suspicious male sleeping in a laundromat next door. This man was not doing laundry, and was later identified as Defendant.\nGuy Morris (\u201cMorris\u201d), who was working as the security guard at the convenience store and the laundromat on 9 April 2010, testified that he saw Defendant enter the laundromat at approximately 2:00 a.m. Defendant then went to sleep inside the laundromat, after which Morris awoke Defendant and asked him to leave. Defendant left the laundromat and entered the convenience store, where he made a purchase with a fifty-dollar bill. After the transaction, Defendant returned to the laundromat. Morris testified that he observed the laundromat continuously from midnight on 9 April 2010 until the police arrived later the same morning to speak with Defendant. Morris said no one other than Defendant had entered the laundromat during that time.\nDetective Herbert Greene (\u201cDetective Greene\u201d) testified that he questioned Defendant on 9 April 2010 about the fifty-dollar bill he had used to purchase items at the convenience store. Defendant said he had won the fifty-dollar bill in a poker game at his cousin\u2019s house. However, Defendant would not give his cousin\u2019s name, address, or telephone number. Defendant told Sergeant Bryan Garwicki (\u201cSergeant Garwicki\u201d) he won the fifty-dollar bill at his brother\u2019s house.\nSergeant Garwicki searched the laundromat and recovered a change purse in an open box next to the dryers. A cell phone and several items of jewelry, which met the description given by Morgan of the stolen jewelry, were inside the change purse. At trial, Morgan identified the change purse and jewelry recovered by Sergeant Garwicki as her property, which had been stolen from her home on 9 April 2010. Sergeant Garwicki also recovered two pairs of rubber gloves in a trash can opposite the dryers.\nDefendant was placed under arrest and indicted on charges of first-degree burglary, larceny after breaking and entering, possession of stolen goods, second-degree kidnapping, assault on a female, and injury to real property. After the trial in this case, the jury acquitted Defendant of the kidnapping charge and found him guilty of the remaining charges. The trial court arrested judgment on the possession of stolen goods and injury to real property convictions and entered judgments convicting Defendant of first-degree burglary, larceny after breaking and entering, and assault on a female. The trial court imposed the sentences of 115 to 147 months incarceration for the first-degree burglary conviction, 18 to 22 months incarceration for the larceny after breaking and entering conviction, and 150 days incarceration for the assault on a female conviction, to be served consecutively. From these judgments, Defendant appeals.\nI: Motion to Dismiss\nIn Defendant\u2019s first and only argument on appeal, he contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charges of first-degree burglary, larceny after breaking and entering, and assault on a female, because there is not substantial evidence that Defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes for which he was convicted. We disagree.\nWhen reviewing a challenge to the denial of a defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss a charge on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, this Court determines \u201cwhether the State presented substantial evidence in support of each element of the charged offense.\u201d State v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328, 374, 611 S.E.2d 794, 827 (2005) (quotation omitted). \u201cSubstantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate, or would consider necessary to support a particular conclusion.\u201d State v. Abshire, 363 N.C. 322, 328, 677 S.E.2d 444, 449 (2009) (quotation omitted). \u201cIn this determination, all evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the State, and the State receives the benefit of every reasonable inference supported by that evidence.\u201d Id. (quotation omitted). Additionally, a \u201csubstantial evidence inquiry examines the sufficiency of the evidence presented but not its weight,\u201d which remains a matter for the jury. State v. McNeil, 359 N.C. 800, 804, 617 S.E.2d 271, 274 (2005) (quotation omitted). Thus, \u201c[i]f there is substantial evidence\u2014 whether direct, circumstantial, or both \u2014 to support a finding that the offense charged has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the case is for the jury and the motion to dismiss should be denied.\u201d Id. (quotation omitted).\nHere, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that Defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes charged. Defendant specifically contends that because there was no physical evidence linking Defendant to the crimes in this case; because Morgan could not identify or specifically describe the intruder; and because Defendant did not make any inculpatory statements, there was no substantial evidence that Defendant committed the crimes. We find this argument unconvincing.\nThe State presented the following evidence: Morgan described Defendant as an African American male who was approximately her height \u2014 a description which, although nonspecific, is not inconsistent with Defendant\u2019s appearance. The crimes occurred at approximately 1:00 a.m. on 9 April 2010 at Morgan\u2019s home. The intruder took a fifty-dollar bill, a change purse, a cell phone, and jewelry. Morris observed Defendant going into the laundromat near Morgan\u2019s home at approximately 2:00 a.m. the same morning. The change purse, cell phone, and jewelry that were stolen from Morgan\u2019s home were found hidden in a box in the laundromat. Morris testified that he observed the laundromat continuously from midnight on 9 April 2010 until the time that the police arrived to question Defendant. Morris said Defendant was the only person who entered the laundromat during that period of time. Defendant admitted he used a fifty-dollar bill to purchase items at the convenience store that morning, and Defendant gave the police conflicting stories as to where he got the fifty-dollar bill.\nDefendant argues this case is analogous to State v. Malloy, 309 N.C. 176, 305 S.E.2d 718 (1983), in which the Supreme Court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the defendant\u2019s conviction for possession of stolen firearms. In Malloy, the Court determined whether the defendant possessed certain stolen firearms located in the trunk of a car parked next to the location at which the defendant was working on another automobile. Id. at 177, 305 S.E.2d at 719. The Supreme Court held that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant actually or constructively possessed the stolen firearms because the only evidence linking the defendant to the stolen firearms was his physical proximity to them. Id. at 179-80, 305 S.E.2d at 720-21.\nWe believe this case is distinguishable from Malloy. Here, Defendant\u2019s proximity to the stolen items found in the laundromat was not the only evidence incriminating Defendant. Defendant\u2019s appearance was consistent with the general description given by Morgan of the intruder. Additionally, Defendant gave the police conflicting stories regarding where he obtained the fifty-dollar bill, and he refused to give the police any contact information for the \u201cbrother\u201d or \u201ccousin\u201d from whom Defendant said he had received the fifty-dollar bill. Detective Greene gave the following testimony, regarding Defendant\u2019s response to his questions about Defendant\u2019s \u201ccousin\u201d:\nThe reason why I asked for a phone number is because . . . \u201cIf I call your [cousin\u2019s] phone number, could he tell me . . . that you were at his house gambling that night?\u201d And [Defendant] told me no. ... I didn\u2019t understand what he meant by no . . . and I said, \u201cWell, why do you mean no? You know, you told me you were at your cousin\u2019s house gambling.\u201d... I said, \u201cWould your cousin tell me that?\u201d And he said no.\nOther facts also distinguish this case from Malloy. In Malloy, officers testified that the defendant was not the only person near the automobile containing the stolen firearms: \u201cThere were two other individuals in the parking lot.\u201d Malloy, 309 N.C. at 177, 305 S.E.2d at 719. Furthermore, the police first found the defendant in Malloy \u201c[a] day or two\u201d after the firearms were stolen, and the police did not discover the stolen firearms until another day had passed. Id. at 177-78, 305 S.E.2d at 719.\nIn this case, testimony reveals that Defendant was the only person seen entering the laundromat where the stolen items were discovered in the relevant hours on the early morning in question, and Defendant was seen entering the laundromat approximately one hour after the items were stolen. While we recognize that Defendant did not have exclusive control of the laundromat where the stolen items were found, see State v. Miller, 363 N.C. 96, 99, 678 S.E.2d 592, 594 (2009) (\u201cUnless a defendant has exclusive possession of the place where the contraband is found, the State must show other incriminating circumstances sufficient for the jury to find a defendant had constructive possession\u201d), we believe there was substantial evidence of other incriminating circumstances sufficient to establish Defendant\u2019s constructive possession of the stolen items in this case, see State v. Alston, 193 N.C. App. 712, 716, 668 S.E.2d 383, 386 (2008), aff'd per curiam, 363 N.C. 367, 677 S.E.2d 455 (2009) (\u201cIncriminating circumstances relevant to constructive possession [have included] . . . evidence that defendant . . . was the only person who could have placed the contraband in the position where it was found\u201d).\nIn light of the foregoing evidence, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we believe the State presented substantial evidence that Defendant was the perpetrator of the first-degree burglary, larceny after breaking and entering, and assault on a female at Morgan\u2019s house on 9 April 2011. Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges ERVIN and BEASLEY concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "THIGPEN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Thomas M. Woodward, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Winifred H. Dillon, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LACY BARNHART\nNo. COA11-623\n(Filed 17 April 2012)\nBurglary and Unlawful Breaking or Entering \u2014 larceny\u2014 assault on a female \u2014 sufficient evidence \u2014 motion to dismiss properly denied\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss charges of first-degree burglary, larceny after breaking and entering, and assault on a female because there was substantial evidence that defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes for which he was convicted.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 27 January 2011 by Judge Douglas B. Sasser in Hoke County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 December 2011.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Thomas M. Woodward, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nWinifred H. Dillon, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0125-01",
  "first_page_order": 135,
  "last_page_order": 140
}
