{ "id": 8550964, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT WALKER, Alias ROBERT HILL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Walker", "decision_date": "1969-12-17", "docket_number": "No. 6919SC531", "first_page": "740", "last_page": "745", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "6 N.C. App. 740" } ], "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": "168 S.E. 2d 380", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558865 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 91", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572822 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E. 96", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N.C. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614056 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575701 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 A.L.R. 721", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 N.E. 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 Ill. 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2426298 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/300/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 N.C. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1955332 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/65/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.C. 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8695938 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/81/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 N.C. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1955465 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "397" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/65/0395-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 532, "char_count": 12455, "ocr_confidence": 0.548, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.570519578096892e-07, "percentile": 0.9614041204718885 }, "sha256": "138c8afd810f194ed304314f7552168dbe8bda38bf33030aa471b8f252dbdd21", "simhash": "1:bb71d46136acc6c3", "word_count": 2137 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:07:50.917320+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Campbell and PARKER, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT WALKER, Alias ROBERT HILL" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Geaham, J.\nDefendant\u2019s motions for judgment of nonsuit were properly-overruled. While there must be a taking and carrying away of the personal property of another to complete the crime of larceny, it is not necessary that the property be completely removed from the premises of the owner. \u201cThe least removal of an article, from the \u2022actual or constructive possession of the owner, so as to be under the control of the felon, will be a sufficient asportation.\u201d State v. Jones, 65 N.C. 395, 397. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence permits an inference that defendant removed the rings from the place where they were kept with the intent to deprive the owner of their possession permanently and to convert them to his own use or the use of some other person. The fact that the property may have been in defendant\u2019s possession and under his control for only an instant is immaterial if his removal of the rings from their original status was such as would constitute a complete severance 'from the possession of the owner. State v. Green, 81 N.C. 560; State v. Jackson, 65 N.C. 305; 52A C.J.S., Larceny, \u00a7 6, p. 427. There was testimony that defendant was successful in putting some of the rings in his pocket. This, standing alone, constitutes sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question of asportation. For a case directly in point see People v. Lardner, 300 Ill. 264, 133 N.E. 375, 19 A.L.R. 721.\nDefendant assigns as error the overruling of his objection to \u2022a question asked him on cross-examination about a statement he made to police officers that he took the rings because he had a girl pregnant and needed some money to get her out of trouble. Defendant admitted having made the statement. This cross-examination was relevant for the purpose of showing that defendant had a motive for the alleged crime. Stansbury, N.C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 83. It was also competent to show that defendant had made prior statements inconsistent with his testimony at the trial. Stansbury, N.C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 46.\nDefendant further assigns as error various portions of the charge, contending that the court misstated some of the evidence, .erred in instructing the jury to carefully scrutinize defendant\u2019s testimony, and overly stressed the State\u2019s contentions. These contentions are without merit. Slight inaccuracies in the statement of the .evidence will not be held for reversible error when not called to the attention of the court at the time. State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509, 160 S.E. 2d 469; State v. Sterling, 200 N.C. 18, 156 S.E. 96. The court not only instructed the jury to' carefully scrutinize the testimony of the defendant as an interested witness but also that if they believed his testimony and found it to be true they were to give to it the same weight as that of a disinterested witness. This instruction was proper. 3 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 117. The contentions of the State and defendant were, in our opinion, fairly stated.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error challenge the court\u2019s failure to instruct the jury as to its duty in fixing the value of the property taken and the failure of the court to submit to the jury the possible verdict of misdemeanor-larceny. These assignments of error are well taken.\nThe record reflects that the verdict of the jury was that the defendant was guilty of \u201cgrand larceny.\u201d The distinction between grand larceny and petty larceny has been abolished in this State for many years. G.S. 14-70. (For a discussion of the history of the larceny statutes in this State see opinion of Bobbitt, J. [now C.J.], in State v. Cooper, 256 N.C. 372, 124 S.E. 2d 91.) While there is no longer a crime in this State designated as \u201cgrand larceny\u201d we nevertheless consider the verdict of the jury as tantamount to a verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged in the bill of indictment. The bill of indictment charges the crime of felony-larceny in that it charges that the value of the property taken was in excess of two hundred dollars. G.S. 14-72 declares that the larceny of property of the value of not more than two hundred dollars is a misdemeanor except where the larceny is from the person or by breaking and entering. It also provides that in all cases of doubt the jury shall, in the verdict, fix the value of the property stolen.\nThe only evidence concerning value in the instant case was that the total value of the thirty-five rings in the tray was $1501.25. The evidence, however, did not show that the defendant took all of the rings, nor did it show the value of those which he did take. Under these circumstances the evidence of value was equivocal and susceptible of diverse inferences. The court should therefore have submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions the issue of the defendant\u2019s guilt of misdemeanor-larceny.\nThere was also error in the failure of His Honor to instruct the jury that in order to convict the defendant of felony-larceny they were required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of larceny and that the value of the property stolen was more than two hundred dollars.\nThe recent case of State v. Jones, 275 N.C. 432, 168 S.E. 2d 380, reaffirmed the decision of State v. Cooper, supra, and made clear that except in those cases where G.S. 14-72 is inapplicable, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the stolen property was more than two hundred dollars in order to convict of felony-larceny, and the trial judge must so instruct the jury even though no request is made for such instruction. The reason for this requirement is that the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty places in issue every essential element of the offense, including the element of value of the property stolen, and the credibility of the testimony must be passed upon by the jury.\nSince the jury was not instructed as to their duty to fix the value of the property in question, the effect is that the jury failed to find that the larceny of which defendant was convicted related to property of a value of more than two hundred dollars. Consequently, as in State v. Jones, supra, the verdict here must be considered as a verdict of guilty of larceny of personal property of a value of two hundred dollars or less. This is a misdemeanor and the judgment entered herein imposed a sentence greater than the maximum allowed therefor. The judgment is therefore vacated and this decision will be certified to the Superior Court of Rowan County for the pronouncement of judgment herein as upon a verdict of guilty of misdemeanor-larceny.\nError and remanded.\nCampbell and PARKER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Geaham, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert Morgan, Attorney General, by Richard N. League, Staff Attorney, for the State.", "George L. Burke, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT WALKER, Alias ROBERT HILL\nNo. 6919SC531\n(Filed 17 December 1969)\n1. Larceny \u00a7 1\u2014 talcing and carrying away \u2014 nonremoval from premises of owner\nThere must be a taking and carrying away of the personal property of another to complete the crime of larceny, although it is not necessary that the property- be completely removed from the premises of the owner.\n2. Larceny \u00a7 7\u2014 larceny of rings \u2014 sufficiency of evidence \u2014 asportation\nEvidence that defendant entered a jewelry store and was observed as he put some rings from a tray into his pocket, that upon the approach of the store owner defendant took the rings out of his pocket and threw them on the floor, and that he ran from the store at the mention of the police, is held, sufficient to permit an inference that defendant removed the rings from the tray with intent to deprive the owner of their possession permanently and to convert them to his own use.\n3. Larceny \u00a7 1\u2014 length of time of defendant\u2019s possession \u2014 severance\nThe fact that rings belonging to a jewelry store may have been in defendant\u2019s possession and under his control for only an instant is immaterial if his removal of the rings from their original status was such as would constitute a complete severance from the possession of the owner.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 33, 86\u2014 cross-examination of defendant \u2014 motive \u2014 inconsistent statements\nIn larceny prosecution, cross-examination of defendant concerning his statement to police officers that he took the rings from a jeweler\u2019s tray because he had a girl pregnant and needed some money to get her out of trouble, held, relevant to show motive and to show that defendant had made prior statements inconsistent with his testimony on trial.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 113\u2014 instructions \u2014 statement of evidence \u2014 slight inaccuracies\nSlight inaccuracies in the statement of the evidence will not be held for reversible error when not called to the attention of the court at the time.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 117\u2014 instructions \u2014 scrutiny of defendant\u2019s testimony\nIt was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury to scrutinize carefully the testimony of defendant as an interested witness and to give the testimony the same weight as that of a disinterested witness if they believed the testimony and found it to be true.\n7. Larceny \u00a7 3\u2014 grand and petty larceny\nThe distinction between grand larceny and petty larceny has been abolished by statute. G.S. 14r70.\nLarceny \u00a7 8\u2014 instructions \u2014 submission of issue of misdemeanor to\nIn a prosecution upon indictment alleging the felonious larceny of rings of a value of $1501.25, the court should have submitted to the jury the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of misdemeanor-larceny, where the evidence of the State did not show that defendant took all of the rings nor did it show the value of those rings that were taken. \u2022 -\n9. Larceny \u00a7\u00a7 5, 8\u2014 felonious larceny \u2014 value of property stolen \u2014 burden of proof \u2014 instructions\nExcept in those eases where G.S. 14-72 is inapplicable, the State in a prosecution for felonious larceny must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the stolen property was more than two hundred dollars, and the trial judge must so instruct the jury even though no request is made for such instruction.\n\u00cdO.'Larceny \u00a7\u00a7 9, 10\u2014 larceny of property in excess of 8200 value \u2014 verdict \u2014 misdemeanor larceny \u2014 judgment in excess of statute\nIn a prosecution upon indictment alleging the felonious larceny of rings of a value of $1501.25, a verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged in the bill of indictment must be considered as a verdict of guilty of larceny of personal property having a value of $200 or less, a misdemeanor, where the trial court failed to instruct the jury as to its duty to fix the value of the property; hence, judgment of four to six years\u2019 imprisonment imposed upon the verdict is in excess of the legal maximum and is vacated and the cause remanded for the pronouncement of judgment as for misdemeanor-larceny.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, J., May 1969 Criminal Session of RowaN County Superior Court.\nDefendant was tried and convicted upon a bill of indictment charging him with the felonious larceny of certain rings of the value of $1601.25.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that the defendant entered the store of Reliable Jewelers, Inc. in Salisbury at about 10 a.m. on 17 January 1969. Shortly thereafter he was seen attempting to put some rings in his pocket. Some were dropping to the floor. When one of the store owners approached him, defendant took some rings out of his pocket and threw them onto the floor. Defendant denied to the store owner that he had taken anything and asked that he be searched. However, when told that the police would search him, defendant ran. He was apprehended later in the morning several blocks from the store. The tray from which the rings were removed contained thirty-five rings with a total value of $1501.25. All of the rings were accounted for within a short time after the incident and the State\u2019s witnesses admitted that defendant did not remove any of the rings from the store premises.\nDefendant testified in his own behalf that he went to the store to get a watchband and while there accidentally knocked a tray of rings from the counter. As he was picking the rings up and replacing them on the counter a store owner accused him of having stolen some of them. He testified that when the police were mentioned he became frightened and ran.\nThe verdict of the jury was that the defendant was guilty of \u201cgrand larceny\u201d and from a judgment of imprisonment for not less than four years nor more than six years defendant appealed assigning error.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General, by Richard N. League, Staff Attorney, for the State.\nGeorge L. Burke, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0740-01", "first_page_order": 764, "last_page_order": 769 }