{
  "id": 8552518,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. REUBEN ISAAC COATS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Coats",
  "decision_date": "1980-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7912SC1199",
  "first_page": "615",
  "last_page": "619",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 615"
    }
  ],
  "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": "220 S.E. 2d 850",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548257
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/28/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 20",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551166
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/8/0304-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 314",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549273
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/31/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S.E. 2d 705",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "707"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 566",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567055
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "569-70"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0566-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 432,
    "char_count": 8287,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.798,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8043500351983706e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7168721033542882
    },
    "sha256": "cec9e946b95f8f4ee31ebcc1742d0ba11d87dd25fa27a36805efc9447771fe46",
    "simhash": "1:a7fc542c9bac94fa",
    "word_count": 1421
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:37.131990+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge HILL concurs.",
      "Judge Webb dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. REUBEN ISAAC COATS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge.\nIn his first assignment of error defendant offers two arguments to support his contention that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the issue of common law robbery to the jury. Defendant first points to his own testimony when he was asked on direct examination, \u201cDid you ever see any gun \u2014 did you see Hoot with any gun?\u201d Defendant answered, \u201cNo, sir.\u201d Counsel asked, \u201cYou didn\u2019t see the gun?\u201d Defendant answered, \u201cIt was dark in the car anyway.\u201d On cross-examination defendant was asked, \u201cYou say you never saw a gun?\u201d He answered, \u201cI didn\u2019t.\u201d The prosecutor then asked, \u201cWere you seated in a position where you could see a gun?\u201d The defendant explained, \u201cIt was dark in the car and it was dark in the area. I was in the back seat and I never saw no gun.\u201d Defendant contends that this evidence, if believed by the jury, tends to establish the commission of the lesser included crime of common law robbery. We do not agree.\nThe essential difference between armed robbery and common law robbery is that the former is accomplished by the use or threatened use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon whereby the life of a person is endangered or threatened. (Citations omitted.) In a prosecution for armed robbery the court is not required to submit the lesser included offense of common law robbery unless there is evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt of that crime. If the State\u2019s evidence shows an armed robbery as charged in the indictment and there is no conflicting evidence relating to the elements of the crime charged an instruction on common law robbery is not required. (Citations omitted.)\nState v. Lee, 282 N.C. 566, 569-70, 193 S.E. 2d 705, 707 (1973). See State v. Wilson, 31 N.C. App. 323, 229 S.E. 2d 314 (1976).\nWe have examined the record and we hold that the testimony of the defendant is not inconsistent with the evidence offered by the State tending to show that the robbery was completed with a firearm. Defendant\u2019s denial of his participation in the robbery of Smith and his denial that he saw a gun during the robbery of Smith does not constitute evidence that defendant is guilty of common law robbery.\nDefendant also argues that the evidence for the State would support an instruction on common law robbery on the theory that Smith\u2019s testimony is suspect due to evidence of his drinking, the poor lighting conditions and an allegedly incomplete description of the weapon.\nIn the absence of a conflict in the evidence, the contention that the jury might accept the evidence in part and reject it in part is not sufficient to require an instruction on a lesser included offense. State v. Gurkin, 8 N.C. App. 304, 174 S.E. 2d 20 (1970). \u201cIt is the task of the jury alone to determine the weight and credibility of the evidence, and to determine the facts.\u201d 4 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 103 (1976).\nIn summary, Smith\u2019s testimony indicates that he saw a barrel, handles, and cylinder of a silver-colored, heavy gun. This gun was pointed at Smith by one of the men in the front seat when Smith was told that he was being robbed and it was still present and visible when the defendant removed Smith\u2019s watch and wallet. The credibility of this evidence was properly a question for the jury. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant next asserts that the record does not affirmatively establish that each juror assented to the verdict announced by the foreman.\nWhen the verdict was returned, defendant requested that the jurors be polled. During that inquiry the following took place:\nCOURT: Mrs. Bailey, your foreman has returned a verdict of guilty as charged, was this your verdict?\nMRS. BAILEY: We understood it acting in concert.\nException. This constitutes\nDEFENDANT\u2019S EXCEPTION NO. 3\nCOURT: Was this your verdict?\nMRS. BAILEY: Yes.\nCOURT: And do you still agree and assent thereto?\nMrs. Bailey: Yes.\nException. This constitutes\nDEFENDANT\u2019S EXCEPTION NO. 4\nArticle I, Sec. 24 of the Constitution of North Carolina requires a unanimous verdict for a valid conviction for any crime. The trial court, upon receiving an unresponsive answer to the question concerning the verdict, repeated the question and received a responsive and affirmative answer. See State v. Blackmon, 28 N.C. App. 255, 220 S.E. 2d 850 (1976). We find no ambiguity in the announcement of the verdict and we hold that the defendant was convicted in the fashion provided for by the Constitution.\nIn defendant\u2019s trial we find\nNo error.\nJudge HILL concurs.\nJudge Webb dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "Judge WEBB\ndissenting.\nI dissent from the majority. I believe there was sufficient evidence of common law robbery for this offense to have been submitted to the jury. The defendant testified that there was a robbery while he was in the automobile but he did not take part in it. He testified that he observed the robbery and it was accomplished by beating James Russell Smith with hands and fists. He testified he never saw a gun. I believe this is evidence which, when considered with the other evidence, is sufficient for the jury to find the defendant participated in the robbery and a weapon was not used. This would be sufficient to convict the defendant of common law robbery, and it was error not to submit this charge.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Judge WEBB"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Dennis P. Myers, for the State.",
      "Macrae, Macrae, Perry & Pechmann, by Daniel T. Perry, III, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. REUBEN ISAAC COATS\nNo. 7912SC1199\n(Filed 6 May 1980)\n1. Robbery \u00a7 5.4\u2014 robbery with dangerous weapon charged \u2014 evidence of common law robbery insufficient\nIn a prosecution for robbery with a dangerous weapon, defendant\u2019s denial of his participation in the robbery and his denial that he saw a gun during the robbery did not constitute evidence sufficient to require the trial court to submit an issue of common law robbery to the jury.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 115\u2014 lesser included offense \u2014 instruction not required\nIn the absence of a conflict in the evidence, the contention that the jury might accept the evidence in part and reject it in part is not sufficient to require an instruction on a lesser included offense.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 126\u2014 jurors assenting to verdict \u2014 court\u2019s inquiry sufficient\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that the record did not affirmatively show that each juror assented to the verdict announced by the foreman, since the record showed that the trial court, upon receiving an unresponsive answer to the question concerning the verdict, repeated the question and received a responsive and affirmative answer.\nJudge Webb dissenting.\nAppeal by defendant from Brown, Judge. Judgment entered 1 August 1979 in Superior Court, CUMBERLAND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 April 1980.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the 20 December 1978 robbery with a dangerous weapon of James Russell Smith. Upon his plea of not guilty he received a trial by jury.\nIn summary, the evidence for the State tended to show that on the date in question James Russell Smith entered a car with defendant, whom Smith knew casually, and three other men. Smith sat in the back with defendant on his left. Another man was on his right. The two remaining men were seated in the front. As they drove in a direction away from the closest town, one man in the front produced a gun and announced that Smith was being robbed. That man and the man on Smith\u2019s right then hit Smith. The defendant took Smith\u2019s wallet and watch. In addition, Smith\u2019s jacket, shoes and money which were kept separate from the wallet were taken. Smith later led police to the scene of the robbery where Smith\u2019s shoes and torn shirt were found. After arrest defendant admitted having been in the car at the time of the robbery but denied that he had given any help to the robbers or to the victim.\nDefendant testified that on the date in question he accepted a ride from some men. Smith joined them and as they rode along one man in the front, known to the defendant as \u201cHoot,\u201d told Smith he was being robbed and hit him. Defendant denied participating in the robbery. Additional evidence is discussed in the opinion.\nThe jury found the defendant guilty as charged and he was sentenced to serve an active term of imprisonment. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Dennis P. Myers, for the State.\nMacrae, Macrae, Perry & Pechmann, by Daniel T. Perry, III, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0615-01",
  "first_page_order": 643,
  "last_page_order": 647
}