{
  "id": 5305724,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAWN ODELL BLAKE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Blake",
  "decision_date": "1990-01-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 193A89",
  "first_page": "31",
  "last_page": "36",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "326 N.C. 31"
    }
  ],
  "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": "397 U.S. 358",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12054393
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/397/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "471 U.S. 307",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6202354
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/471/0307-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "352 S.E.2d 420",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4740119
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 S.E.2d 813",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 N.C. 506",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2517600
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/322/0506-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 446,
    "char_count": 11654,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.726,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3109492097801841
    },
    "sha256": "45322aa8ec49668bc4b6aa2aa97891c56caa3311f5170a409db7a96289407ab3",
    "simhash": "1:40207571ef9478a9",
    "word_count": 2007
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:38:26.587833+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAWN ODELL BLAKE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Justice.\nThe defendant brings forward several assignments of error. One assignment of error deals with the jury charge as to the attempted armed robbery convictions. The court arrested judgment on these two counts and any error in the charge was harmless. We shall address the defendant\u2019s other assignments of error.\nThe defendant argues that there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding of the attempted armed robbery of Ralph Houser. He says that because this is so he was convicted of felony murder based on the erroneous finding of the underlying felony and he must have a new trial. The defendant argues that all the evidence shows the robbery was completed. We have held in State v. White, 322 N.C. 506, 369 S.E.2d 813 (1988), that armed robbery and attempted armed robbery are two separate crimes.\nWe believe there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find an attempted armed robbery by the defendant of Mr. Houser. It is true that Mr. Houser testified to a completed armed robbery. The defendant testified, however, that when he went into the house he intended to rob both men. After he shot Mr. McNeill, Mr. Houser asked the defendant not to shoot him and threw his wallet toward the defendant. The defendant left without taking the wallet. This is evidence from which the jury could find all the elements of attempted armed robbery. State v. Allison, 319 N.C. 92, 352 S.E.2d 420 (1987). It was not error for the court to submit attempted armed robbery of Ralph Houser to the jury and this evidence supports a verdict of felony murder based on the attempted armed robbery.\nThe defendant next assigns error to the charge. He says, \u201cThe instructions, taken as a whole, failed to sufficiently separate the four cases and fail to insure separate consideration by the jury of the Defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence on each count.\u201d He says first that the court did not give an adequate instruction that the charges must be considered separately. He says further that the court in other parts of the charge \u201cserved to cloud the issue of individual treatment of the charges and victims.\u201d He says that a charge susceptible to the interpretation that the four distinct charges should be determined together on the issue of guilt unconstitutionally lessens the burden of the State. See Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970).\nThe defendant asked the court to charge as follows:\nThe defendant, Shawn Odell Blake, is charged with four independent offenses. Each charge and the evidence pertaining to it should and must be considered separately. The fact that you may find the Defendant guilty or not guilty as to one of the offenses charged should not control your verdict as to any other offenses charged.\nThe court declined this charge and the defendant requested the following charge in the alternative:\nThe Defendant, Shawn Odell Blake, is charged with four independent offenses. Each charge and the evidence pertaining to it must be considered separately. The fact that you may find the defendant guilty or not guilty as to one of the offenses charged with respect to a particular alleged victim should not control the question of guilt or innocence as to any other offense charged relating to another particular alleged victim.\nThe court declined this charge as well, but instructed as follows:\nNow, the Defendant, Shawn Odell Blake, is charged with four independent offenses. Each charge and the evidence pertaining to it should and must be considered separately.\nThe court charged the jury substantially as requested by the defendant except that the court did not charge that the fact that the jury found the defendant guilty or not guilty on one charge should not affect the verdict on another charge. We do not believe this would keep the jury from understanding it was required to consider each charge separately as instructed by the court.\nIn the court\u2019s charge to the jury on the felony murder counts the court instructed the jury it could find the defendant guilty of felony murder if it found beyond a reasonable doubt, among other things, \u201cthat the defendant intended to rob George McNeill or Ralph Houser\u201d and \u201cthat he used the firearm in such a way as to endanger or threaten the life of George McNeill or Ralph Houser.\u201d The defendant contends this charge allowed the jury to convict the defendant on two counts of felony murder without requiring the jury to find which of the two felonies was the basis for finding the defendant guilty of murder. The defendant also says this charge did not require a unanimous verdict because some members of the jury could have based their murder verdicts on one of the attempted armed robberies and the other members could have based their verdicts on the other attempted armed robbery. We hold that any error on this portion of the charge was cured by the verdicts of the jury. The jury found the defendant guilty of both the attempted armed robberies. We believe it is obvious that the jury based its verdicts for felony murder on both the attempted armed robberies. Both killings took place during the attempted armed robberies.\nThe defendant argues under his last assignment of error that the court erred in overruling his motion to arrest judgment on the conviction of the murder of Charles Newton. He says the court allowed the jury to convict him of felony murder based on the felony of attempted armed robbery of George McNeill or the attempted armed robbery of Ralph Houser. The defendant argues that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of the attempted armed robbery of Ralph Houser and because we cannot tell upon which of the two felonies the jury based its verdict, the verdict should have been arrested. We have held there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the attempted armed robbery of Ralph Houser. This assignment of error is overruled.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Reginald L. Watkins, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.",
      "James R. Parish for the defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAWN ODELL BLAKE\nNo. 193A89\n(Filed 18 January 1990)\n1. Robbery \u00a7 4.4 (NCI3d)\u2014 felony murder \u2014 attempted armed robbery \u2014evidence sufficient\nThere was sufficient evidence of an attempted armed robbery as the underlying felony for a felony murder, even though defendant contended that the robbery was completed, where defendant testified at trial that he went into a house to rob two men and shot one; the other then asked defendant not to shoot him and threw his wallet toward defendant; and defendant left without taking the wallet. This was evidence from which the jury could find all the elements of attempted armed robbery.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7\u00a7 72-75.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 754 (NCI4th) \u2014 multiple counts \u2014 instructions\u2014 no error\nThere was no error in a prosecution for two counts of first degree murder and two counts of armed robbery where the trial court\u2019s instruction to the jury on independent consideration of the charges was substantially as requested by the defendant except that the court did not charge that the fact that the jury found the defendant guilty or not guilty on one charge should not affect the verdict on another charge. This would not keep the jury from understanding that it was required to consider each charge separately as instructed by the court.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7\u00a7 277, 529-535.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 926 (NCI4th) \u2014 felony murder \u2014 attempted armed robbery \u2014 multiple counts\nThere was no prejudicial error in a prosecution for two counts of armed robbery and two counts of murder, even though defendant contended that the court\u2019s charge to the jury allowed the jury to convict defendant on two counts of felony murder without requiring the jury to find which of the two felonies was the basis for the finding of guilty of murder, because any error was cured by verdicts finding defendant guilty of both attempted armed robberies. It was obvious that the jury based its verdicts for felony murder on both the attempted armed robberies.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7 79.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 989 (NCI4th)\u2014 felony murder \u2014 sufficient evidence of underlying felony \u2014motion to arrest judgment properly denied\nThe trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motion to arrest judgment on a felony murder conviction where defendant contended that the court allowed the jury to convict him of felony murder based on either of two attempted armed robberies, that there was not sufficient evidence of one of the attempted armed robberies, and that it could not be determined upon which of the two felonies the jury based its verdict. There was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the attempted armed robbery disputed by defendant.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7 442.\nAPPEAL of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing two consecutive life sentences entered by Britt (Joe Freeman), J., at the 9 January 1989 Criminal Session of Superior Court, CUMBERLAND County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 December 1989.\nThe defendant was tried on two counts of first' degree murder and two counts of armed robbery. The State sought the death penalty. Ralph William Houser testified for the State that he had lived in Fayetteville in a house with George McNeill and Charles Newton. On the night of 8 January 1988 Mr. Newton was not at home and Mr. Houser was there with George McNeill. At approximately 9:00 p.m. the two men heard a knock on the door and Mr. McNeill said \u201ccome in.\u201d The defendant entered carrying a shotgun. The defendant asked Mr. McNeill if he wanted to buy a gun and Mr. McNeill said he did not want to do so. Mr. Houser then testified that the defendant said, \u201c[g]ive me your money.\u201d The defendant then shot Mr. McNeill and took Mr. McNeill\u2019s wallet from his pocket.\nMr. Houser testified further that after the defendant shot Mr. McNeill he pointed the gun at Mr. Houser and said, \u201c[g]ive me your money.\u201d Mr. Houser testified he gave the defendant his billfold. The defendant then started to leave and met Charles Newton who was coming through the door. He shot Mr. Newton. Mr. McNeill and Mr. Newton died of the gunshot wounds.\nThe defendant testified that he went into the house and saw two men, one of whom was seated on a couch and the other' in a chair. He said, \u201cI was there to rob them. I was there for them to give me their money.\u201d He testified that he said \u201cI\u2019m here to get paid\u201d and Mr. McNeill said, \u201cDon\u2019t point that gun at me.\u201d The defendant testified that Mr. McNeill reached for his back pocket and started to get up, at which time he shot Mr. McNeill. The defendant testified further, \u201cI started turning around. The gentlemen on my left, the first man that was \u2014 that I seen when I came in the door, he was \u2014He said, \u2018Don\u2019t shoot me. Don\u2019t shoot me.\u2019 He picked up \u2014He took out his wallet and threw it under the coffee table. I told him, I said, you know, \u2018Shut up,\u2019 you know. \u2018I\u2019m not going to hurt you. Shut up.\u2019 I was trying to get out of the door.\u201d The defendant testified as he started out the door Mr. Newton started to enter the house through the door. The defendant then shot Mr. Newton.\nThe jury returned verdicts of guilty of attempted armed robbery in each of the two armed robbery cases and guilty of first degree murder based on felony murder in each of the two murder cases. In one murder case the jury recommended life in prison. In the other murder case the jury could not agree as to the sentence. The court arrested judgment in the two attempted armed robbery convictions and sentenced the defendant to consecutive life sentences in the murder cases. The defendant appealed.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Reginald L. Watkins, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nJames R. Parish for the defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0031-01",
  "first_page_order": 67,
  "last_page_order": 72
}