{ "id": 4720397, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY BATES", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bates", "decision_date": "1985-06-04", "docket_number": "No. 631PA84", "first_page": "580", "last_page": "586", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "313 N.C. 580" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "319 S.E. 2d 683", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "70 N.C. App. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523069 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/70/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 S.E. 2d 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564024 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "314 S.E. 2d 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 716", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2401091 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0716-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E. 2d 584", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "591" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4681279 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "666" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0656-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 U.S. 890", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11378056, 11377949, 11377893, 11378007 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "dismissal allowed only if no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/444/0890-04", "/us/444/0890-02", "/us/444/0890-01", "/us/444/0890-03" ] }, { "cite": "443 U.S. 307", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182418 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "dismissal allowed only if no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" }, { "parenthetical": "dismissal allowed only if no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/443/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S.E. 2d 595", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599-600" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.C. 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566138 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "168" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/262/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564117 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E. 2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559773 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 49", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575372 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 578", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565031 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E. 2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "dismissal allowed only if no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560587 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "dismissal allowed only if no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.E. 2d 799", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "802" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4708015 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "474" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "308 S.E. 2d 258", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "262-63" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4767283 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "535" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S.E. 2d 169", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574116 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 851", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569617 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "330 S.E. 2d 204", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 591", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4724983 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0591-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E. 2d 683", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "70 N.C. App. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523069 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/70/0477-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 661, "char_count": 13975, "ocr_confidence": 0.792, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.948870710727239e-07, "percentile": 0.903743809001992 }, "sha256": "a192a2a9733baaab36b344fbe1b0b04f7adb21fc44f21347f1841b12ce96393f", "simhash": "1:4fddf6a8f82d847e", "word_count": 2447 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:31.098159+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice Vaughn did not participate in the decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY BATES" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Justice.\nThe sole issue before this Court is whether the Court of Appeals properly held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss the charge against him at the close of the state\u2019s evidence and at the close of all the evidence. We hold that the Court of Appeals did not err and that judgment was properly entered against defendant by the trial court.\nA defendant\u2019s motion for dismissal for insufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case raises the question of whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and of the defendant\u2019s being the perpetrator of such offense. State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 296 S.E. 2d 649 (1982). In determining this issue the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, and the state is entitled to every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. Id.; State v. McKinney, 288 N.C. 113, 215 S.E. 2d 578 (1975). If there is substantial evidence \u2014 whether direct, circumstantial, or both \u2014 to support a finding that the offense charged has been committed and that the defendant committed it, a case for the jury is made and a motion to dismiss should be denied. E.g., State v. Cook, 273 N.C. 377, 160 S.E. 2d 49 (1968). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 265 S.E. 2d 164 (1980).\nIn the present case defendant was charged by an indictment proper in form with common law robbery. As this Court stated in State v. Black, 286 N.C. 191, 193, 209 S.E. 2d 458, 460 (1974), \u201c[r]obbery at common law is the felonious taking of money or goods of any value from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by violence or putting him in fear.\u201d Defendant contends that because there was insufficient evidence of a felonious taking or a taking with violence, the trial court erroneously denied his motions to dismiss. The felonious taking element of common law robbery requires \u201ca taking with the felonious intent on the part of the taker to deprive the owner of his property permanently and to convert it to the use of the taker.\u201d State v. Lawrence, 262 N.C. 162, 168, 136 S.E. 2d 595, 599-600 (1964).\nTaken in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence at trial tended to show that on the evening of 4 March 1983 Marty and Ravonda Hedrick and their two children were at home in Davidson County. About 7:00 p.m. defendant, Bobby Bates, rang the doorbell of the Hedrick house, and Mr. Hedrick went to the door. Mr. Hedrick did not recognize the defendant, who asked him to come around to the back of the house because, defendant said, he had something for Mr. Hedrick to see. Mr. Hedrick complied and went through the house to the sun deck on the back of the house. As he did so defendant\u2019s father, Howard Bates, came around the corner of the house. Howard and Bobby Bates then began to curse Mr. Hedrick and accused him of spinning the wheels of his jeep in Howard Bates\u2019s yard. Mr. Hedrick then told the Bateses he wanted no trouble and began to retreat up the steps into his house, but defendant and his father pursued him into the house. Mr. Hedrick went up the stairs into his bedroom, got his .22-caliber rifle, returned to the kitchen, and ordered defendant and his father to leave. About this time defendant knocked the rifle out of Mr. Hedrick\u2019s hands and struck him. The rifle fired, and the bullet went through the kitchen counter top. Howard Bates picked up the rifle and pointed it at Mrs. Hedrick. Mr. Hedrick asked his wife to call \u201cthe law,\u201d but defendant\u2019s father repeatedly threatened to kill her if she did so. From the blow struck by defendant, Mr. Hedrick fell about ten feet down some stairs, against a bannister. Defendant grabbed a spindle from the bannister and beat Mr. Hedrick about the head. Mr. Hedrick blacked out. Defendant then started to leave the house. His father, taking the rifle with him, followed shortly. Defendant\u2019s father testified that he gave defendant the gun as they were leaving the house. As defendant and his father got into defendant\u2019s car, defendant threw the rifle into the back seat. According to defendant\u2019s father, defendant then stated, \u201cDaddy, he won\u2019t shoot us now.\u201d Defendant and his father then drove away. The rifle was never returned. The sheriff s department was then called, and Mr. Hedrick was taken to the emergency room for treatment.\nWe hold that the trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss the charge against him. State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 296 S.E. 2d 649. Our holding is also in accord with the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560, reh'g denied, 444 U.S. 890 (1979) (dismissal allowed only if no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).\nDefendant also argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to set aside the jury verdict as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1414(b)(2) (1983). \u201cSuch a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is not reviewable in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion.\u201d State v. Whitley, 311 N.C. 656, 666, 319 S.E. 2d 584, 591 (1984). Accord, State v. Jones, 310 N.C. 716, 314 S.E. 2d 529 (1984); State v. Witherspoon, 293 N.C. 321, 237 S.E. 2d 822 (1977). Defendant has failed to come forward with any showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, this assignment of error is meritless.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is\nAffirmed.\nJustice Vaughn did not participate in the decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Justice." }, { "text": "Justice Exum\ndissenting.\nDefendant Bobby Bates and his father, Howard Bates, were tried jointly at the 11 July 1983 Session of Davidson County Superior Court. They were convicted of common law robbery and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. On separate appeals to the Court of Appeals, one panel of that court concluded on Howard Bates\u2019 appeal that the evidence was insufficient to be submitted to the jury. The opinion in that case is unpublished. See State v. Howard Bates, No. 621PA84, filed 4 June 1985, 313 N.C. 591, 330 S.E. 2d 204 (1985). Another panel of the Court of Appeals determined in Bobby Bates\u2019 appeal that the evidence was sufficient. State v. Bobby Bates, 70 N.C. App. 477, 319 S.E. 2d 683 (1983).\nI agree with the panel of the Court of Appeals which determined that the evidence of common law robbery is insufficient to be submitted to the jury.\nThe evidence against both defendants is succinctly summarized by Judge Whichard, who wrote for the Court of Appeals in Bobby Bates\u2019 appeal:\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant and his father, a codefendant, drove to the house of the victim to discuss personal grievances. An argument ensued, and the victim retreated into his house to get a rifle. Defendant and his father followed the victim into the house. Defendant knocked the rifle out of the victim\u2019s hands and began beating him around the head with a spindle. Defendant\u2019s father then picked up the rifle. Defendant and his father left with the rifle and did not return it.\nThe evidence is also correctly summarized, in somewhat more detail, by Judge Becton, writing for the Court of Appeals in Howard Bates\u2019 appeal:\nAbout 7:00 on 4 March 1983, the defendant, Howard Bates, and his son, Bobby Bates, went to the home of Marty Hedrick in Lexington. Bobby Bates rang the doorbell, and, when Marty Hedrick came out of the house to talk to the Bates, an argument ensued concerning Marty Hedricks\u2019 alleged action in spinning tires, causing damage to the Bates\u2019 yard. Bobby Bates made threats to Marty Hedrick, and a scuffle ensued. Hedrick ran into his house and got a .22 automatic rifle. When Hedrick came back to the kitchen area, Howard and Bobby Bates were present in the kitchen. When another argument started, Hedrick pointed the gun at Bobby Bates. During the argument, Bobby Bates was able to strike the gun Hedrick was holding, causing it to discharge, and he also was able to strike Hedrick, causing him to fall through a nearby bannister into a lower level of the house. Bobby Bates went down the steps to the place where Hedrick had landed and hit Hedrick several times. Howard Bates, meanwhile, picked up the rifle that was lying on the kitchen floor. When Mrs. Hedrick attempted to telephone for help, Howard Bates threatened her with the rifle. Bobby Bates then came up the steps and went out the back door. He was later followed by Howard Bates, who left carrying the rifle.\nDuring the time the father and son were in the Hedrick home, neither of them mentioned anything about stealing any item, including the rifle. Bobby contended that he hit Hedrick in order to protect himself; Howard contended that he took the rifle when he left the Hedrick home so as to prevent Hedrick from gaining access to the rifle, and thereby endangering his own life and his son\u2019s life.\nSpecifically on the question of defendants\u2019 intent with regard to the rifle, state\u2019s witnesses Marty and Revonda Hedrick testified as follows:\nMarty Hedrick:\nQ. Did Bobby Bates say anything about stealing anything from you?\nA. That he was going to steal anything from me?\nQ. Yes, sir.\nA. No.\nRevonda Hedrick:\nQ. Did anybody, either Bobby or Howard, any time say they were coming there to steal anything?\nA. No.\nHoward Bates testified in his defense as follows:\nQ. Why did you take the gun?\nA. To keep from getting shot with it; so I could get away from there, he had done fired one shot.\nIn considering a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence, it is true that the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the state. It is also well established that defendant\u2019s evidence, which does not contradict or conflict with the state\u2019s evidence and which tends to explain, or even rebut inferences of guilt in, the state\u2019s evidence, must be considered:\nWe have consistently held that on a motion to dismiss, the court must consider the defendant\u2019s evidence which explains or clarifies that offered by the State. State v. Blizzard, 280 N.C. 11, 184 S.E. 2d 851 (1971); State v. Bruton, 264 N.C. 488, 142 S.E. 2d 169 (1965). The court must also consider the defendant\u2019s evidence which rebuts the inference of guilt when it is not inconsistent with the State\u2019s evidence. State v. Bruton, supra.\nState v. Bates, 309 N.C. 528, 535, 308 S.E. 2d 258, 262-63 (1983).\nFurther, \u201c[i]t is well settled law that the defendant must have intended to permanently deprive the owner of his property at the time the taking occurred to be guilty of the offense of robbery.\u201d State v. Richardson, 308 N.C. 470, 474, 302 S.E. 2d 799, 802 (1983). It is not enough to convict of robbery that the felonious intent to steal was formed after defendant obtained possession of the victim\u2019s property. Id.\nWhen the state\u2019s evidence and the defendants\u2019 evidence which does not conflict with, and tends to explain and rebut any inference of guilt contained in, the state\u2019s evidence is considered together, as it must be, I am satisfied that the evidence is insufficient to show defendants intended to steal the rifle when they took it. All the evidence, both that for the state and defendant, shows only that when Bobby Bates deprived Marty Hedrick of possession of the rifle, he did so not with an intent to steal it, but to defend himself against its use. He simply knocked the rifle out of Hedrick\u2019s hand onto the floor. Likewise when Howard Bates picked up the rifle from the floor and took it with him, he did so not for the purpose of stealing it but, as he said, \u201cto keep from getting shot with it . . . .\u201d There is no evidence to the contrary.\nNothing I say here is intended to condone everything the Bates did on this occasion. Indeed, they may be guilty of the crime of trespass or assault with a deadly weapon, or both. I am satisfied, however, that the evidence falls far short of raising a jury question on their guilt of common law robbery.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Justice Exum" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by James Peeler Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Philip B. Lohr for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY BATES\nNo. 631PA84\n(Filed 4 June 1985)\nRobbery \u00a7 4.2\u2014 common law robbery \u2014 evidence sufficient\nDefendant\u2019s motions to dismiss a charge of common law robbery and to set aside the verdict were properly denied where the evidence at trial tended to show that defendant rang the doorbell of Marty and Ravonda Hedrick at about 7:00 p.m. on 4 March 1983; defendant told Mr. Hedrick that he had something for Mr. Hedrick to see at the back of the house; Mr. Hedrick went through the house to the sun deck at the rear of the house; defendant\u2019s father came around the corner of the house and they both began to curse Mr. Hedrick and accuse him of spinning the wheels of his jeep in defendant\u2019s father\u2019s yard; Mr. Hedrick retreated into his house, pursued by defendant and his father; Mr. Hedrick got his .22-caliber rifle and ordered defendant and his father to leave; defendant knocked the rifle out of Mr. Hedrick\u2019s hands; defendant\u2019s father picked up the rifle and threatened to kill Mrs. Hedrick if she called the law; defendant grabbed a spindle from a bannister and beat Mr. Hedrick about the head; Mr. Hedrick blacked out, and defendant and his father started to leave; and defendant\u2019s father gave defendant the gun as they were leaving and defendant threw it into the back seat of his car, saying \u201cDaddy, he won\u2019t shoot us now.\u201d G.S. 15A-1414(b)(2) (1983).\nJustice Vaughn did not participate in the decision of this case.\nJustice Exum dissenting.\nOn defendant\u2019s petition for discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 70 N.C. App. 477, 319 S.E. 2d 683 (1984), finding no error in the judgment entered by Morgan, J., at the 11 July 1983 session of Superior Court, DAVIDSON County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 May 1985.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by James Peeler Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nPhilip B. Lohr for defendant." }, "file_name": "0580-01", "first_page_order": 610, "last_page_order": 616 }