{ "id": 4220875, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY PRIMUS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Primus", "decision_date": "2013-05-21", "docket_number": "No. COA12-1106", "first_page": "428", "last_page": "434", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "227 N.C. App. 428" } ], "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": "672 S.E.2d 689", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642776 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "690", "parenthetical": "\"[I]t is settled that attempted felony larceny is a lesser-included offense of felony larceny.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/672/0689-01" ] }, { "cite": "667 S.E.2d 295", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642036 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225, 233, 287 S.E.2d 810, 815 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/667/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "650 S.E.2d 29", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12639310 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/650/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "463 S.E.2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding an impermissible expression of opinion, or an assumption that a material fact had been proved, was harmless error where it was supported by the evidence" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. App. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11917860 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding an impermissible expression of opinion, or an assumption that a material fact had been proved, was harmless error where it was supported by the evidence" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/120/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "402 S.E.2d 809", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "814", "parenthetical": "\"In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling sought if the specific grounds are not apparent.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2541401 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "420", "parenthetical": "\"In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling sought if the specific grounds are not apparent.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0409-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 S.E.2d 94", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2486845 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "494" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.C. App. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525601 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/117/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 N.C. App. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4165007 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "323", "parenthetical": "\"[I]t is settled that attempted felony larceny is a lesser-included offense of felony larceny.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/195/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 S.E.2d 91", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93", "parenthetical": "\"The least removal of an article, from the actual or constructive possession of the owner, so as to be under the control of the felon, will be a sufficient asportation.\" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 N.C. App. 740", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550964 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "743", "parenthetical": "\"The least removal of an article, from the actual or constructive possession of the owner, so as to be under the control of the felon, will be a sufficient asportation.\" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/6/0740-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 S.E.2d 427", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "428", "parenthetical": "\"A bare removal from the place in which he found the goods, though the thief does not quite make off with them, is a sufficient asportation, or carrying away.\" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564777 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103", "parenthetical": "\"A bare removal from the place in which he found the goods, though the thief does not quite make off with them, is a sufficient asportation, or carrying away.\" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "473 S.E.2d 362", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 N.C. App. 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11913052 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/123/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E.2d 417", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "421" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567296 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 S.E.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "815" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567315 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "233" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 N.C. App. 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4162160 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "380", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225, 233, 287 S.E.2d 810, 815 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/193/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "169" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559773 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78-79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "526 S.E.2d 451", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "455", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155599 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 N.C. App. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8154614 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "62" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/186/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-160", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 14-72", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 741, "char_count": 15329, "ocr_confidence": 0.706, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.3273534133396256e-08, "percentile": 0.3356207253781977 }, "sha256": "2629e6ba15affbc784a01a91e51fcdedc88b4c4b2ceb8f68c3895362f8477768", "simhash": "1:a36b5029086924d3", "word_count": 2529 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:48:13.495142+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER (Robert C.) and DAVIS concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY PRIMUS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCullough, Judge.\nMichael Anthony Primus (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from his convictions for attempted felony larceny and injury to personal property. For the following reasons, we find no error and uphold defendant\u2019s convictions.\nI. Background\nTestimony at trial revealed the following: Wendell Smith (\u201cMr. Smith\u201d) awoke to the sound of a dog barking around 7:00 a.m. on 11 March 2011. Mr. Smith proceeded outside to investigate, at which time he heard aloud noise coming from the direction of his niece\u2019s (\u201cMs. McDonald\u201d) mobile home. As Mr. Smith walked towards the direction of the noise, he saw defendant driving away from Ms. McDonald\u2019s mobile home in a red vehicle. Defendant was towing a trailer with an air-conditioning unit (the \u201cA/C unit\u201d) on it.\nMr. Smith stopped defendant as defendant was turning onto the road from Ms. McDonald\u2019s property and asked defendant where he got the A/C unit. Defendant first responded that there were \u201ctwo or three of them... in the woods, and [he] got one of them.\u201d However, after Mr. Smith made further inquiry, defendant admitted that he \u201cgot that [A/C unit] from that house right down there [,]\u201d indicating Ms. McDonald\u2019s mobile home. At that point, Mr. Smith informed defendant that the mobile home from which defendant took the A/C unit belonged to his niece. Defendant then apologized and told Mr. Smith that he would put the A/C unit back. Nonetheless, Mr. Smith informed defendant that he was still going to contact the police.\nMs. McDonald returned home after learning of the incident. Upon arrival, Ms. McDonald found the A/C unit sitting behind her mobile home with all of the connections cut. Ms. McDonald further testified that the A/C unit was previously attached to her mobile home.\nFollowing a police investigation, defendant was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued on 15 March 2011. On 19 September 2011, defendant was indicted by a Scotland County Grand Jury on one count of attempted felony larceny pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 14-72(a) and -2.5 and one count of injury to personal property pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-160. Defendant\u2019s case came on for jury trial at the 25 June 2012 Criminal Session of Scotland County Superior Court, the Honorable Richard T. Brown presiding. After hearing testimony from Mr. Smith, Ms. McDonald, the investigating officer, defendant and others, the jury returned verdicts finding defendant guilty of attempted felony larceny and injury to personal property. The trial court consolidated the offenses and entered a judgment on 29 June 2012 sentencing defendant to a term of 10 to 12 months. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal following his sentencing.\nII. Analysis\nDefendant raises two issues on appeal: whether the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to dismiss the attempted felony larceny charge; and (2) instructing the jury that \u201c[w]ires and piping connected to an air-conditioning unit are personal property.\u201d We address these issues in order.\nMotion to Dismiss\nDefendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to present the charge for attempted felony larceny to the jury. \u201cThis Court reviews the trial court\u2019s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo.\" State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007). \u201cUpon defendant\u2019s motion for dismissal, the question for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant\u2019s being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is properly denied.\u201d State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). \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).\nAt the outset of our analysis, we note that it is the State\u2019s decision to charge and prosecute a defendant as it deems appropriate. In this case, the State charged defendant with attempted felony larceny instead of felony larceny. Although defendant admits in his brief that \u201c[t]he evidence conclusively established that [defendant\u2019s] actions met each and every element of a completed larceny[,]\u201d defendant now appeals his conviction for the more lenient charge of attempted felony larceny.\nWhere crimes are defined by elements, in accordance with the standard of review set forth above, we review the sufficiency of the evidence in regard to the specific elements of the offense charged: in this case, attempted felony larceny. \u201c \u2018The essential elements of a larceny are that the defendant!] (1) took the property of another; (2) carried it away; (3) without the owner\u2019s consent; and (4) with the intent to deprive the owner of [the] property permanently.\u2019 \u201d State v. Allen, 193 N.C. App. 375, 380, 667 S.E.2d 295, 299 (2008) (quoting State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225, 233, 287 S.E.2d 810, 815 (1982)). \u201cThe two elements of an attempt to commit a crime are: (1) An intent to commit it, and (2) an overt act done for that purpose, going beyond mere preparation, but falling short of the completed offense.\u201d State v. Powell, 277 N.C. 672, 678, 178 S.E.2d 417, 421 (1971). Combining the two, this Court has stated that, \u201c[t]he essential elements of attempted larceny are: (1) An intent to take and carry away the property of another; (2) without the owner\u2019s consent; (3) with the intent to deprive the owner of his or her property permanently; (4) an overt act done for the purpose of completing the larceny, going beyond mere preparation; and (5) falling short of the completed offense.\u201d State v. Weaver, 123 N.C. App. 276, 287, 473 S.E.2d 362, 369 (1996).\nIn this appeal, defendant only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in regard to the fifth element.\nAll of the evidence presented by the State at trial tended to show that defendant cut the A/C unit connections, loaded the A/C unit into a trailer behind his vehicle, and drove away from Ms. McDonald\u2019s mobile home with the A/C unit in tow. When Mr. Smith stopped defendant, defendant was far enough from Ms. McDonald\u2019s mobile home that the mobile home could not be seen. We hold this evidence sufficient to show a completed larceny. See State v. Carswell, 296 N.C. 101, 103, 249 S.E.2d 427, 428 (1978) (\u201cA bare removal from the place in which he found the goods, though the thief does not quite make off with them, is a sufficient asportation, or carrying away.\u201d (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also State v. Walker, 6 N.C. App. 740, 743, 171 S.E.2d 91, 93 (1969) (\u201cThe least removal of an article, from the actual or constructive possession of the owner, so as to be under the control of the felon, will be a sufficient asportation.\u201d (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).\nThis does not end our analysis, however. Attempted larceny is a lesser-included offense of larceny. State v. Ford, 195 N.C. App. 321, 323, 672 S.E.2d 689, 690 (2009) (\u201c[I]t is settled that attempted felony larceny is a lesser-included offense of felony larceny.\u201d) While neither party discussed the case of State v. Canup, 117 N.C. App. 424, 451 S.E.2d 9 (1994), we believe that the defendant\u2019s conviction should be upheld based on the guidance provided us in Canup. In that case, the defendant was charged with and convicted of attempted second-degree rape of the prosecutrix. The evidence at trial showed that the defendant actually inserted his penis in the victim\u2019s vagina, thus completing the offense. On appeal, the defendant in Canup contended that there was insufficient evidence to find each and every element of the offense and that there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence at trial.\nThis Court, in the Canup case, rejected that argument saying:\nEvidence that this defendant continued to pursue his malevolent purpose and achieved penetration does not decriminalize his prior overt acts. The completed commission of a crime must of necessity include an attempt to commit the crime. As Rollin Perkins states in his treatise on criminal law, \u201cnothing in the philosophy of juridical science requires that an attempt must fail in order to receive recognition.\u201d Rollin M. Perkins and Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law, 612 (3rd ed. 1982). The treatise goes on to say:\nA successful attempt to commit a crime will not support two convictions and penalties, one for the attempt and the other for the completed offense. This is for the obvious reason that whatever is deemed the appropriate penalty for the total misconduct can be imposed upon conviction of the offense itself, but this does not require the unsound conclusion that proof of the completed offense disproves the attempt to commit it.\nId. at 612 (emphasis supplied).\nAs in State v. Wade, defendant, in the case at bar, contends that the evidence submitted indicated that only the greater charge of second degree rape should have been submitted to the jury. We find that the evidence submitted would have supported the defendant\u2019s being charged with either second degree rape or attempted second degree rape and convicted of either offense. The fact that the State elected to prosecute the defendant for the lesser crime of attempted second degree rape and that the jury found the defendant guilty of attempted second degree rape did not prejudice the defendant. The evidence supported that verdict. Moreover, as in State v. Wade, we find that if there were error, it was favorable to the defendant and harmless.\nWe believe that the rationale provided by Canup applies to the case at bar and therefore will uphold defendant\u2019s conviction for the charged offense of attempted felony larceny.\nJury Instruction\nDefendant also argues that the trial judge\u2019s instruction to the jury that \u201c[w]ires and piping connected to an air-conditioning unit are personal property[,]\u201d was an improper expression of the trial judge\u2019s opinion as to a factual issue within the province of the jury. Thus, defendant contends he is entitled to a new trial.\nDefendant is correct in his assertion that \u201c[t]he judge may not express during any stage of the trial, any opinion in the presence of the jury on any question of fact to be decided by the jury.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1222 (2011). Furthermore, \u201c[t]he statutory prohibitions against expressions of opinion by the trial court contained in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1222 and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1232 are mandatory.\u201d State v. Young, 324 N.C. 489, 494, 380 S.E.2d 94, 97 (1989). Therefore, \u201c[a] defendant\u2019s failure to object to alleged expressions of opinion by the trial court in violation of those statutes does not preclude his raising the issue on appeal.\u201d Id.\nIn the instant case, the trial judge instructed the jury concerning the injury to personal property charge as follows:\nLadies and gentleman, the defendant has also been charged with willful and wonton injury to personal property. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt:\nFirst, that the defendant injured the personal property of the victim by cutting wires and piping to an air-conditioning unit. Wires and piping connected to an air-conditioning unit are personal property.\nSecond, that the defendant did this willful and wantonly, that is, intentionally and without justification or excuse and without regard for the consequences or rights of others. If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged date, the defendant willful and wantonly injured the victim\u2019s personal property, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of willful and wanton injury to personal property. If you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty as to that charge.\n(Emphasis added.)\nUpon review of the trial judge\u2019s instruction, we do not think the statement that \u201c[w]ires and piping connected to an air-conditioning unit are personal property[,]\u201d amounted to the opinion of the trial court. In issuing the jury instruction, the trial judge simply filled in the blanks in the pattern jury instruction for injury to personal property. See N.C.P.L-Crim. 223.15 (\u201cFirst, that the defendant injured the personal property of the victim by (describe act). (Describe property) is personal property.\u201d) Therefore, if the statement amounts to error, it was an instructional error that was not preserved for appeal. See State v. Eason, 328 N.C. 409, 420, 402 S.E.2d 809, 814 (1991) (\u201cIn order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling sought if the specific grounds are not apparent.\u201d).\nFurthermore, assuming arguendo that the trial judge\u2019s instruction to the jury was an opinion as to a factual issue, we think the error is harmless. We find that the trial judge\u2019s instruction classifying the wires and piping as personal property was supported by the evidence. See State v. Merritt, 120 N.C. App. 732, 463 S.E.2d 590 (1995) (holding an impermissible expression of opinion, or an assumption that a material fact had been proved, was harmless error where it was supported by the evidence).\nIII. Conclusion\nFor the reasons set forth above, we uphold defendant\u2019s convictions as his trial was conducted free of any prejudicial error.\nNo prejudicial error.\nJudges HUNTER (Robert C.) and DAVIS concur.\n. \u201cIn criminal cases, an issue that was not preserved by objection noted at trial and that is not deemed preserved by rule or law without any such action nevertheless may be made the basis of an issue presented on appeal when the judicial action questioned is specifically and distinctly contended to amount to plain error.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 10(a)(4). Here, however, defendant does not assert plain error.", "type": "majority", "author": "McCullough, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Donna B. Wojcik, for the State.", "Richard J. Costanza for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY PRIMUS\nNo. COA12-1106\nFiled 21 May 2013\n1. Larceny \u2014 attempted felony larceny \u2014 motion to dismiss\u2014 sufficiency of evidence \u2014 completed commission of crime includes attempt\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss an attempted felony larceny charge. The completed commission of a crime must necessarily include an attempt to commit the crime and the evidence was sufficient to show a completed larceny.\n2. Larceny \u2014 attempted felony larceny \u2014 injury to personal property \u2014 jury instruction \u2014 wires and piping connected to air-conditioning unit\nThe trial court did not err in an attempted felony larceny and injury to personal property case by instructing the jury that wires and piping connected to an air-conditioning unit were personal property. If the statement amounted to error, it was an instructional error that was not preserved for appeal. Further, assuming arguendo that the instruction was an opinion as to a factual issue, the error was harmless since it was supported by the evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 29 June 2012 by Judge Richard T. Brown in Scotland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 February 2013.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Donna B. Wojcik, for the State.\nRichard J. Costanza for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0428-01", "first_page_order": 438, "last_page_order": 444 }