{
  "id": 8525136,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID LAWRENCE LAMSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lamson",
  "decision_date": "1985-06-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 8419SC917",
  "first_page": "132",
  "last_page": "136",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. App. 132"
    }
  ],
  "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": "241 S.E. 2d 89",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.C. App. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547990
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/35/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 S.E. 2d 199",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 77",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8595202
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0077-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 S.E. 2d 822",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 804",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4704405
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0804-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 445",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519384
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/61/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 S.E. 2d 230",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 N.C. App. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522877
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/62/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 S.E. 2d 579",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 N.C. 622",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2404033
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/310/0622-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 S.E. 2d 440",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N.C. App. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526750
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/64/0324-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 S.E. 2d 350",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567721
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 S.E. 2d 524",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558324
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 S.E. 2d 542",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 N.C. 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573967
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/303/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 S.E. 925",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1887,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "927"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.C. 393",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650537
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1887,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "396-7"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/97/0393-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 S.E. 2d 325",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561808
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 S.E. 2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561203
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0169-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 S.E. 2d 114",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.C. 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573434
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/299/0095-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 579,
    "char_count": 10893,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.821,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.593384850858697e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6824915274983213
    },
    "sha256": "4de88efaf3b048dc0248945ea08a616798b5468879950184695a63fb463c9307",
    "simhash": "1:c2251aec075f8a1a",
    "word_count": 1840
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:29.490718+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WEBB and Becton concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID LAWRENCE LAMSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThe sole issue presented is whether there was sufficient evidence to support defendant\u2019s conviction for first degree burglary.\nTo support a conviction there must be substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged. State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 261 S.E. 2d 114 (1980). Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence that would convince a rational trier of fact. State v. Corbett, 307 N.C. 169, 297 S.E. 2d 553 (1982). To support a conviction of first degree burglary there must be substantial evidence that defendant broke and entered a dwelling house at nighttime, with intent to commit a felony therein. State v. Wells, 290 N.C. 485, 226 S.E. 2d 325 (1976). The intended felony alleged in defendant\u2019s indictment was larceny, thus the State must have presented evidence sufficient for the jury to find that, at the time defendant entered the residence, he intended to take and carry away the personal property of another without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property. See G.S. 14-72.\nThe State relies on State v. McBryde, 97 N.C. 393, 1 S.E. 925 (1887), for the proposition that intent to commit larceny can be inferred from the evidence presented at trial that defendant was breaking into the house and fled when the Deputy Sheriffs arrived.\nIn McBryde, the defendant entered a bedroom at 2:00 a.m. where two women were sleeping. One woman awoke and screamed, and the defendant fled. The defendant was found guilty of burglary with felonious intent to commit larceny. In affirming the trial court, our Supreme Court observed:\nThe intelligent mind will take cognizance of the fact, that people do not usually enter the dwellings of others in the night time, when the inmates are asleep, with innocent intent. The most usual intent is to steal, and when there is no explanation or evidence of a different intent, the ordinary mind will infer this also. The fact of the entry alone, in the night time, accompanied by flight when discovered, is some evidence of guilt, and in the absence of any other proof, or evidence of other intent, and with no explanatory facts or circumstances, may warrant a reasonable inference of guilty intent.\nState v. McBryde, 97 N.C. at 396-7, 1 S.E. at 927.\nThis inference has been relied on in numerous cases. See, e.g., State v. Simpson, 303 N.C. 439, 279 S.E. 2d 542 (1981); State v. Sweezy, 291 N.C. 366, 230 S.E. 2d 524 (1976); State v. Hedrick, 289 N.C. 232, 221 S.E. 2d 350 (1976).\nThis inference has, however, been held not to apply in two recent decisions by this court: State v. Hankins, 64 N.C. App. 324, 307 S.E. 2d 440 (1983), affirmed per curiam 310 N.C. 622, 313 S.E. 2d 579 (1984) and State v. Moore, 62 N.C. App. 431, 303 S.E. 2d 230 (1983). In Hankins, defendant pushed the front door open and entered the house. He said to one of the occupants, \u201cThis is no joke. I have got a knife. Get up against the wall.\u201d A man came out of his bedroom and began struggling with the defendant. Defendant fled. The court submitted first degree burglary to the jury with the underlying felonious intention of either rape or larceny. This court held that under State v. Rushing, 61 N.C. App. 62, 300 S.E. 2d 445, affirmed per curiam 308 N.C. 804, 303 S.E. 2d 822 (1983), there was not sufficient evidence that the defendant intended to commit rape at the time he entered the house, and the manner in which he entered the house did not give rise to the inference that he intended to commit larceny.\nIn Moore, an occupant of the house found defendant in an upstairs bedroom. Defendant was not carrying a weapon and was drunk. Defendant testified that a man threatened him with a knife and told him to go into the house. Defendant climbed the stairs believing the man holding the knife was behind him, opened the door and walked into the house. When he heard someone in the house, he hid behind a bedroom door. This court held that the evidence did not give rise to the McBryde inference of intent to steal because there was evidence to support an inference that defendant was coerced to enter the house.\nIn the instant case we find that there was evidence of other intent or explanatory facts and circumstances to preclude application of the McBryde inference of felonious intent. We find nothing in the evidence which supports a finding that defendant entered Christie\u2019s house with intent to commit larceny. Consequently, the first degree burglary charge against defendant must be dismissed. But for the error in the jury instructions discussed below, we would remand this case for resentencing on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor breaking or entering.\nWe find, however, that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on the defense of mistake of fact, and we must award defendant a new trial on the charge of misdemeanor breaking or entering.\nOrdinarily, a crime consists in the concurrence of prohibited conduct and culpable mental state. 1 Wharton\u2019s Criminal Law \u00a7 27 (14th ed. 1978). A crime is not committed if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent. State v. Welch, 232 N.C. 77, 59 S.E. 2d 199 (1950). If there is evidence from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant committed the act without a criminal intent, then the law with respect to intent should be explained and applied by the court to the evidence. State v. Walker, 35 N.C. App. 182, 241 S.E. 2d 89 (1978). In Walker, the defendant, who was charged with abducting a child, testified that when he took the child from the school bus he believed she was his granddaughter, and as soon as he discovered his mistake he returned her to the school. This court held that the evidence permitted the inference that the defendant was laboring under a mistake as to the identity of the little girl which could negate any criminal intent, and the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on the defense of mistake of fact.\nSimilarly, in the instant case there was some evidence permitting the inference that defendant was acting under a mistake of fact. John Nunn testified that he lived at 103 Woodland Drive, next door to Christie, and that Jeff Henley, a friend of defendant\u2019s, was staying with him. Defendant had previously visited Henley several times at Nunn\u2019s house. Thus defendant had a reason to be at Nunn\u2019s house. Additionally, the evidence showed that Christie\u2019s house and Nunn\u2019s house were similar in appearance. Christie\u2019s house was brick, Nunn\u2019s house was imitation brick. Both houses had attached white garages, front porches with gables and roof peaks running north and south. Photographs of both houses were introduced into evidence for illustrative purposes. The obvious objective of the introduction of this evidence was to show mistake. This evidence, coupled with the fact that it was nighttime, is, in our view, sufficient to raise an inference of mistake of fact, and on retrial for misdemeanor breaking or entering the trial judge should instruct the jury on this defense.\nNew trial.\nJudges WEBB and Becton concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Guy A. Hamlin for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Adam Stein by Assistant Appellate Defender Robin E. Hudson for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID LAWRENCE LAMSON\nNo. 8419SC917\n(Filed 4 June 1985)\n1. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 6.2\u2014 first-degree burglary \u2014inference of felonious intent \u2014 evidence insufficient\nThere was insufficient evidence to support defendant\u2019s conviction for first-degree burglary where defendant\u2019s indictment alleged that defendant broke and entered a dwelling house at nighttime with intent to commit larceny, there was nothing in the evidence to support a finding that defendant entered the house with intent to commit larceny, and there was evidence of other intent or explanatory facts and circumstances to preclude an inference of felonious intent from evidence that defendant was breaking into the house and fled when deputies arrived.\n2. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 6.2\u2014 first-degree burglary \u2014mistake of fact \u2014 instruction required\nThe trial judge erred in a prosecution for first-degree burglary by not instructing the jury on the defense of mistake of fact where the evidence showed that defendant had previously visited a friend at the house next door to the house where he was arrested, it was nighttime, and the two houses were similar in appearance.\nAppeal by defendant from Mills, Judge. Judgment entered 22 May 1984 in Superior Court, CABARRUS County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 March 1985.\nDefendant was charged in a true bill of indictment with first degree burglary. He was found guilty and sentenced to eighteen years imprisonment.\nAt trial the State presented the following evidence. Joanne Christie testified that she lived at 101 Woodland Drive in Concord. The night of 7 April 1984 Christie\u2019s husband was at work, and she was at home with her mother and niece. Christie went to bed at 10:30 p.m. and was awakened by a scraping noise. She saw that her bedroom window, which opened onto the front porch, was open, and a man was standing outside her window. Christie was sure that she had closed the window when she went to bed. Christie asked defendant what he was doing, he jumped back, and she shut the window. Christie ran to the kitchen and called the Sheriffs Department and her husband. When she was in the kitchen she heard the back door shaking, as if someone was pulling the doorknob back and forth.\nDeputy Sheriff Tommy Fisher testified that when he arrived at Christie\u2019s residence he saw defendant standing on the steps leading to the back door. Defendant started walking down the steps and then ran. Three hours later Fisher found defendant about a mile away and arrested him. According to Fisher, defendant had been drinking, but was not drunk. Behind Christie\u2019s garage Deputy Sheriff J. A. Cook found a brown canvas suitcase and a pile of clothing. There were eight letters addressed to defendant in the suitcase. No burglary tools were found in the suitcase or in defendant\u2019s possession.\nDefendant presented the following evidence. John Nunn testified that he lived at 103 Woodland Drive, next door to the Christie residence. Jeff Henley, a friend of defendant\u2019s, was staying with Nunn, and defendant had visited him at Nunn\u2019s house several times.\nDefendant did not testify.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of first degree burglary.\nAt the sentencing hearing defendant said he had no intent to break into Christie\u2019s home, he had mistaken her house for the Nunn\u2019s house and was trying to wake somebody up to see when Jeff Henley would be back to give him a ride to Charlotte.\nThe trial judge found one aggravating factor, that defendant had a prior conviction punishable by more than 60 days confinement, and no mitigating factors. Defendant received a sentence of eighteen years.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Guy A. Hamlin for the State.\nAppellate Defender Adam Stein by Assistant Appellate Defender Robin E. Hudson for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0132-01",
  "first_page_order": 164,
  "last_page_order": 168
}
