{
  "id": 8521023,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DARYL WESLEY FERREE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ferree",
  "decision_date": "1981-10-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 8120SC340",
  "first_page": "183",
  "last_page": "185",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 N.C. App. 183"
    }
  ],
  "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": "215 S.E. 2d 842",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551383
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/26/0276-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 389",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 692",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554476
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0692-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 S.E. 2d 301",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562858,
        8562795,
        8562839,
        8562808,
        8562778
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0097-05",
        "/nc/301/0097-02",
        "/nc/301/0097-04",
        "/nc/301/0097-03",
        "/nc/301/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 S.E. 2d 260",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N.C. App. 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549701
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/48/0194-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 68",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 748",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576505
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0748-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 S.Ct. 2873",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 L.Ed. 2d 761",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "408 U.S. 939",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1782720,
        1782785,
        1782912,
        1782723,
        1782762,
        1782831,
        1782832,
        1782961,
        1782833,
        1782865,
        1782868,
        1782933,
        1782941,
        1782835,
        1782936,
        1782777,
        1782813
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/408/0939-13",
        "/us/408/0939-10",
        "/us/408/0939-06",
        "/us/408/0939-16",
        "/us/408/0939-01",
        "/us/408/0939-05",
        "/us/408/0939-02",
        "/us/408/0939-08",
        "/us/408/0939-07",
        "/us/408/0939-17",
        "/us/408/0939-14",
        "/us/408/0939-15",
        "/us/408/0939-03",
        "/us/408/0939-12",
        "/us/408/0939-04",
        "/us/408/0939-11",
        "/us/408/0939-09"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 572",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "586"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565554
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "41-42"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 624",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573661
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 4986,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.794,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.9112621469126825e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36940840952503406
    },
    "sha256": "adbb84623de019b3d5fc237bc804359ab2be381a6a74528c3121dc4ce9c2eba1",
    "simhash": "1:cb7c4179b7631c78",
    "word_count": 884
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:12:28.716896+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MARTIN (Harry C.) and BECTON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DARYL WESLEY FERREE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge.\nThe defendant assigns as error the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to dismiss for fatal variance between the indictment and the State\u2019s proof. The defendant contends.that the court erred in charging the jury that they could find the defendant guilty if they found he aided and abetted in the commission of armed robbery, because the indictment did not charge the defendant with aiding and abetting. We disagree. State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25, 153 S.E. 2d 741 (1967) holds explicitly that a person who aids or abets another in the commission of armed robbery is guilty under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87, and it is not necessary that the indictment charge the defendant with aiding and abetting.\nThe defendant also contends that although he knew that his companion was going to rob the store, he did not know that his companion was going to use a firearm. A defendant who enters into a common design for a criminal purpose is equally deemed in law a party to every act done by others in furtherance of such design. State v. Lovelace, 272 N.C. 496, 158 S.E. 2d 624 (1967). Thus, if \u201ctwo persons join in a purpose to commit a crime, each of them, if actually or constructively present, is not only guilty as a principal if the other commits that particular crime, but he is also guilty of any other crime committed by the other in pursuance of the common purpose; that is, the common plan to rob, or as a natural or probable consequence thereof.\u201d State v. Westbrook, 279 N.C. 18, 41-42, 181 S.E. 2d 572, 586 (1971), vacated on other grounds 408 U.S. 939, 33 L.Ed. 2d 761, 92 S.Ct. 2873 (1972), conformed to 281 N.C. 748, 191 S.E. 2d 68 (1972). Thus defendant\u2019s argument is without merit and is overruled.\nWe add that in this case it may be easily inferred from the State\u2019s evidence that the defendant and Wardell Blackman went to the scene in an automobile; that the defendant stayed in the car while his companion entered the West End Grocery Mart and with the use of a firearm robbed the proprietors; that the defendant drove Blackman away from the scene of the robbery; and that the defendant had some of the robbery proceeds in his possession upon his arrest. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find the evidence sufficient to warrant submitting the case to the jury. See, State v. Corbin, 48 N.C. App. 194, 268 S.E. 2d 260, disc. review denied 301 N.C. 97, 273 S.E. 2d 301 (1980); State v. Allen, 24 N.C. App. 692, 212 S.E. 2d 389 (1975); State v. Goodman, 26 N.C. App. 276, 215 S.E. 2d 842 (1975).\nFor the foregoing reasons the defendant\u2019s assignments of error is without merit and is overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges MARTIN (Harry C.) and BECTON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Tiare B. Smiley, for the State.",
      "Seawell, Robbins, May, Webb & Rich by H. F. Seawell, Jr., for the defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DARYL WESLEY FERREE\nNo. 8120SC340\n(Filed 6 October 1981)\n1. Robbery \u00a7 2\u2014 armed robbery \u2014 not necessary to charge aiding and abetting in indictment\nA person who aids or abets another in the commission of armed robbery is guilty under the provisions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-87, and it is not necessary that the indictment charge the defendant with aiding and abetting.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 9.2\u2014 aider and abettor \u2014 guilt as to all criminal acts\nA defendant who' enters into a common design for a criminal purpose is equally deemed in law a party to every act done by others in furtherance of such design; therefore, where defendant knew that his companion was going to rob a store, it did not matter that he did not know his companion was going to use a firearm.\nAppeal by defendant from Lamm, Judge. Judgment entered 3 November 1980 in Superior Court, MOORE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 September 1981.\nThe defendant was indicted for armed robbery and the jury found him guilty as charged. From a sentence of a maximum of seven years imprisonment as a committed youthful offender, the defendant appeals.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 9 September 1980 the defendant participated in the armed robbery of the West End Grocery Mart. Wardell Blackman testified that he and the defendant drove to the scene of the crime, that they decided to rob the store, and that the defendant waited outside in the car while Blackman went into the store and robbed the proprietors at gunpoint. Blackman then got back into the car with the defendant, who drove them away from the scene. The two men agreed to split the robbery proceeds and Wardell gave the defendant a handful of the coins prior to their arrests.\nThe defendant testified that he had no agreement with Blackman to rob the store and that he did not realize that Blackman planned the robbery until Blackman got a toboggan and a bag out of the trunk immediately before going into the store. The defendant did not know that his companion had a gun and did not intend to take any of the robbery proceeds.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Tiare B. Smiley, for the State.\nSeawell, Robbins, May, Webb & Rich by H. F. Seawell, Jr., for the defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0183-01",
  "first_page_order": 211,
  "last_page_order": 213
}