{
  "id": 8553971,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES DEWEY WEBB",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Webb",
  "decision_date": "1975-11-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7524SC570",
  "first_page": "391",
  "last_page": "393",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 391"
    }
  ],
  "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": "46 S.E. 2d 834",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 659",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627999
      ],
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0659-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 149",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570160
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 S.E. 2d 760",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553438
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/19/0368-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 S.E. 2d 205",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552064
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576044
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 572",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576067
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E. 2d 641",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551772
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/2/0170-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 525",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 208",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574962
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0208-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 353,
    "char_count": 5871,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.605,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20597919029256145
    },
    "sha256": "f8db805bcaed3c0b12bb49dc813f363d0f58cf18fc02d1e9cc1d985bec7b5a76",
    "simhash": "1:922ad03fc69d1552",
    "word_count": 1011
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES DEWEY WEBB"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nWe disagree with defendant\u2019s first assignment of error which is the overruling of his motion for nonsuit. He contends there is insufficient evidence to find that the life of Mrs. Greene was endangered or threatened.\nThe records show clear evidence of the endangering or threatening a life with the use of a firearm. Mrs. Greene testified that the defendant had a chrome plated gun, about six to eight inches long, and that \u201c[h]e put the gun in my face and said lady this is a holdup. If you don\u2019t start screaming and making too much noise I won\u2019t hurt you. The gun was laying on my forehead. ... I started into the living room and he put the gun to my temple and told me to go back and turn the light on back there.\u201d\nConsidered in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence is clearly sufficient to prove that the defendant accomplished the robbery by the use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon and that the property taken had value. State v. Rogers, 273 N.C. 208, 159 S.E. 2d 525 (1968) ; State v. Green, 2 N.C. App. 170, 162 S.E. 2d 641 (1968).\nDefendant next contends that the trial court failed in its charge to properly and adequately define the elements of the crime of robbery with firearms. Defendant argues that the trial court should have further defined and explained what \u201cintending to rob Mrs. Greene\u201d meant in order to fully explain the felonious intent necessary to constitute the crime of robbery.\nThe felonious intent to take the goods of another and appropriate them to defendant\u2019s own use is a necessary element of armed robbery. The trial court is required to give some explanation of felonious intent in its charge, however, the court is not obligated to use the specific words \u201cfelonious intent.\u201d The trial court is merely obligated to give a correct description of the state of mind necessary to establish the defendant\u2019s culpability. State v. Mundy, 265 N.C. 528, 144 S.E. 2d 572 (1965) ; State v. Spratt, 265 N.C. 524, 144 S.E. 2d 569 (1965) ; State v. Potter, 20 N.C. App. 292, 201 S.E. 2d 205 (1973) ; State v. Moore, 19 N.C. App. 368, 198 S.E. 2d 760 (1973).\nConsidering the entire charge in the instant case the trial judge sufficiently described all of the elements of armed robbery including the necessary felonious intent. The jury was instructed \u201cthat at the time of the taking and carrying away the defendant intended to rob Mrs. Greene. Fifth, that the defendant knew that he was not entitled to take the property.\u201d (Emphasis added.) The trial judge further charged the jury that if \u201cthe defendant knowing that he was not entitled to take the property and intending at that time to rob Mrs. Greene of the property permanently\u201d he should be found guilty. (Emphasis added.) The expression \u201cintent to rob\u201d is a sufficient definition of \u201cfelonious intent\u201d as applied to the robbery statute, in the absence of evidence raising an inference of a different intent or purpose. State v. Spratt, supra.\nFinally, the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of common law robbery. Defendant\u2019s argument has no merit. Where all the evidence tends to show that defendant was guilty of a completed armed robbery, the trial court did not err in failing to charge the jury as to the lesser included offense of common law robbery. State v. Griffin, 280 N.C. 142, 185 S.E. 2d 149 (1971) ; State v. Bell, 228 N.C. 659, 46 S.E. 2d 834 (1948).\nHaving considered all the assignments of error we find that the trial was free of prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney T. Lawrence Pollard, for the State.",
      "Lloyd Hise, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES DEWEY WEBB\nNo. 7524SC570\n(Filed 5 November 1975)\n1. Robbery \u00a7 4 \u2014 armed robbery \u2014 victim\u2019s life threatened or endangered\u2014 sufficiency of evidence , ,\nThe State\u2019s evidence in an armed robbery prosecution was sufficient for the jury to find that a motel manager\u2019s life was endangered or threatened by use of a firearm where the manager testified that defendant pointed a chrome plated gun at her head, told her this was a holdup, and took $1415 in cash and earrings valued at $450 from her.\n2. Robbery \u00a7 5 \u2014 armed robbery \u2014 instructions \u2014 felonious intent\nWhile the trial court in an armed robbery case must instruct the jury on felonious intent, the court is not required to use the specific words \u201cfelonious intent\u201d but is merely obligated to give a correct description of the state of mind necessary for the crime.\n3. Robbery \u00a7 5 \u2014 armed robbery \u2014 sufficiency of instruction on felonious intent\nThe trial court\u2019s instruction on the \u201cfelonious intent\u201d element of armed robbery was sufficient where the court instructed the jury that in order to convict defendant it must find that, at the time of the taking and carrying away, defendant \u201cintended to rob\u201d the victim and \u201cknew that he was not entitled to take the property.\u201d\n4. Robbery \u00a7 5 \u2014 armed robbery \u2014 failure to submit common law robbery\nWhere all the evidence tended to show that defendant was guilty of a completed armed robbery, the trial court did not err in r failing to charge the jury as to the lesser included offense of common law robbery.\nAppeal by defendant from Martin, Judge. Judgment entered 7 April 1975 in Superior Court, Mitchell County. Heard' in the Court of Appeals 21 October 1975.\nDefendant was tried upon an indictment charging armed robbery. The State\u2019s evidence tended to establish that the defendant, armed with a chrome plated gun, robbed the Baker Motel and Mrs. Dorothy Greene, the motel manager, of $1415 cash and a set of earrings valued at $450. Defendant offered no evidence and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of robbery with a firearm.\nFrom a judgment imposing a prison sentence, the defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney T. Lawrence Pollard, for the State.\nLloyd Hise, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0391-01",
  "first_page_order": 419,
  "last_page_order": 421
}