STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Gaston County
Nos. 02 CRS 54645, 54648-
ARTURIO SHEVIGA LITTLEJOHN 49
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
John W. Congleton, for the State.
William B. Gibson, for defendant-appellant.
CALABRIA, Judge.
On 1 April 2002, Arturio Sheviga Littlejohn (“defendant”) was
indicted on two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon and one
count of possession of a firearm by a felon. Following a trial
which began on 21 January 2003, defendant was convicted of two
counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon and possession of a
firearm by a felon. Defendant appeals asserting the weapons seized
were improperly admitted into evidence and therefore there was
insufficient evidence of the weapon for the charges of robbery with
a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm by a felon. We find
no error. On 22 March 2002, Jacky Burgan and Fred Robinson were working
at R&W Tire Store in Bessemer City, North Carolina. Sometime
during the afternoon, defendant came to the store in a white Nissan
Stanza. Defendant was accompanied by another man, as well as a
passenger in the back seat whose head was covered by a jacket.
Defendant told Burgan that one of his tires was leaking. Burgan
had sold the tires to defendant about two weeks earlier. Burgan
took the tire off the car and tested it, but could not find any
leaks. Defendant and the other male then went into the tire store
to look at tires. Eventually, a man named David Murphy arrived,
and defendant followed him and left the store.
About two minutes after they left, defendant pulled back up to
the store. Defendant told Burgan and Robinson that Murphy had
robbed him of his marijuana. Defendant asked if there was a phone
so they could “call the law.” Robinson told him “Yeah, I got a
phone, I'll call.” However, defendant changed his mind and told
Robinson “don't call the police.”
Burgan and Robinson went back into the store to help other
customers. Shortly thereafter, Robinson went to answer the phone,
and the man accompanying defendant “slapped” the phone out of
Robinson's hand. The man grabbed Robinson by the shirt, pointed a
“big gun” at him, threatened to shoot him and took his wallet. At
the same time, defendant pointed a pistol at Burgan and took some
money that was in Burgan's shirt pocket. The two men then ran out
of the store, got in their car and drove away. Burgan and Robinson
then called the police. A short time later, Officer Scott Bates of the Lowell Police
Department received a call to be on the lookout for a white Nissan
that had been involved in an armed robbery. Officer Bates spotted
the defendant's car traveling on I-85 traveling northbound, called
for backup, and stopped the vehicle. The defendant and a man in
the passenger seat were removed from the vehicle and secured. A
third person, Wyshena Rankin, was found in the rear passenger side
of the vehicle. In plain view, Officer Bates observed a handgun
laying on the floorboard, as well as a black wallet. Detective
Eddie Atkinson of the Gastonia City Police Department testified
that another detective, Detective Eddie Green, recovered a wallet
and two pistols from the car.
Defendant appeals asserting the trial court erred by: (I)
admitting the weapons into evidence; and (II) failing to dismiss
the charges which were premised upon use of the weapon.
We first consider whether the weapons seized from defendant's
vehicle were properly admitted into evidence. Defendant contends
there existed confusion as to the actual weapons seized, and thus
Detective Eddie Green, the person who actually seized the weapons
from the arrest scene, should have testified and identified them at
trial. In the absence of Detective Green's testimony, defendant
argues there existed a material break in the chain of custody.
After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of
the parties, we find no error. This Court has stated:
[A] complete chain of custody with no missing
links is not always a prerequisite to the
admissibility of articles seized by the
police. Where the articles objected to havebeen identified as being the same objects
seized and in somewhat the same condition, as
happened here, proving a continuous chain of
custody is unnecessary.
State v. Hart, 66 N.C. App. 702, 704, 311 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1984)
(citations omitted). Furthermore, “[a] detailed chain of custody
need be established only when the evidence offered is not readily
identifiable or is susceptible to alteration and there is reason to
believe that it may have been altered.” State v. Campbell, 311
N.C. 386, 389, 317 S.E.2d 391, 392 (1984).
In the case sub judice, several witnesses identified State's
Exhibit #2, the Larson .22 caliber pistol, as the weapon that
defendant possessed on the date of the robbery. Burgan stated that
the Larson pistol was the gun that defendant pointed at him during
the robbery. Rankin also testified that the pistol was the same
that defendant possessed on 22 March 2002. Detective Atkinson
later testified that the Larson pistol “appear[ed] to be the one
that was taken from the vehicle by Detective Green.” There was no
allegation that the pistol had been altered in any way, and Rankin
testified that it was in the same condition as it was on the day of
the robbery. Thus, we conclude that the Larson pistol was properly
admitted into evidence. Moreover, we note that “any weak links in
a chain of custody relate only to the weight to be given evidence
and not to its admissibility.” Campbell, 311 N.C. at 389, 317
S.E.2d at 392 (citing State v. Montgomery, 291 N.C. 91, 229 S.E.2d
572 (1976)). Accordingly, the assignment of error is overruled. Defendant next argues that there was insufficient evidence to
support the conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. We are
not persuaded.
To survive a motion to dismiss, the State must present
substantial evidence of each essential element of the charged
offense. State v. Cross, 345 N.C. 713, 716-17, 483 S.E.2d 432, 434
(1997). “'Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'”
Id. at 717, 483 S.E.2d at 434 (quoting State v. Olson, 330 N.C.
557, 564, 411 S.E.2d 592, 595 (1992)). When reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he trial court must consider such
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State
the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.”
State v. Patterson, 335 N.C. 437, 450, 439 S.E.2d 578, 585 (1994)
(citing State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231, 237, 400 S.E.2d 57, 61
(1991)).
In the instant case, defendant was charged with robbery with
a dangerous weapon. The essential elements of robbery with a
dangerous weapon are: “(1) an unlawful taking or an attempt to
take personal property from the person or in the presence of
another, (2) by use or threatened use of a firearm or other
dangerous weapon, (3) whereby the life of a person is endangered or
threatened.” State v. Call, 349 N.C. 382, 417, 508 S.E.2d 496, 518
(1998) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-87; State v. Small, 328 N.C.
175, 400 S.E.2d 413 (1991)). Here, the only issue raised by
defendant was whether he possessed a dangerous weapon. However, wehave already determined that the Larson pistol was properly
admitted into evidence. Accordingly, in the light most favorable
to the State, a reasonable mind could conclude that defendant
committed the offense of robbery with a dangerous weapon. Cross,
345 N.C. at 717, 483 S.E.2d at 434.
Defendant finally argues that there was insufficient evidence
to sustain the conviction for possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon. Defendant contends that there was testimony that
he possessed a fake gun, and thus could not be convicted of
possession of a firearm by a felon.
We find no error. North Carolina law provides:
It shall be unlawful for any person who has
been convicted of a felony to purchase, own,
possess, or have in his custody, care, or
control any handgun or other firearm with a
barrel length of less than 18 inches or an
overall length of less than 26 inches, or any
weapon of mass death and destruction as
defined in G.S. 14-288.8(c).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.1(a) (2003). Here, both Rankin and Burgan
testified that defendant possessed the .22 caliber Larson pistol on
the date of the robbery. To the extent that evidence was admitted
in conflict with Rankin and Burgan's testimony, “[i]t was thus for
the jury to determine the nature of the weapon.” State v. Allen,
317 N.C. 119, 125-26, 343 S.E.2d 893, 897 (1986). Accordingly, the
assignment of error is overruled.
No error.
Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***