STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Guilford County
No. 02 CRS 87132
TERRELL TICE CLARK
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Gaines M. Weaver, for the State.
Allen W. Boyer for defendant-appellant.
LEVINSON, Judge.
On 5 August 2002, the Guilford County grand jury indicted
defendant on a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon.
Following a forensic evaluation and observation of defendant, the
Forensic Psychiatry Division of Dorothea Dix Hospital on 22
November 2002 found him to be not capable of proceeding to trial.
Defendant was subsequently committed to a twenty-four-hour facility
for treatment pursuant to an involuntary commitment order. After
being readmitted to Dorothea Dix Hospital on 18 March 2003 for
evaluation, defendant was found to be capable of proceeding to
trial.
At trial, the State introduced evidence which tended to showthe following: On the morning of 6 June 2002, defendant asked
Nelson Conner to drive him to Greensboro in order to get some crack
cocaine. Another passenger in the car, Chip, purchased the crack
cocaine upon their arrival there. After the three men had finished
smoking the crack cocaine, defendant asked Conner to stop at the
Red Roof Inn on the way back to Yadkinville. Defendant said he
wanted to stop to see if he could get some money. Upon arriving at
the motel, defendant grabbed a flat-head screwdriver, said he was
going to try to get some money, and got out of the car. He told
Conner to go to a motel located beside the Red Roof Inn and wait
for him. Conner decided to leave defendant at the Red Roof Inn and
take Chip back to Yadkinville because he “didn't want to have
nothing to do with what [defendant] was doing.”
Tori Ann Bolding was working behind the front desk at the Red
Roof Inn on the afternoon of 6 June 2002. At around 2:45 p.m.,
defendant entered the motel and began asking questions about rooms
and rates. Defendant then asked if a certain manager still worked
there. Elaine Harris-Rich, the other person on duty behind the
desk, informed him that the manager's name was Hope and that she
was not at work. Defendant suddenly came behind the front desk and
held something very sharp to Bolding's side. Bolding believed it
was a knife. Defendant told Bolding to open the register, but her
hands were shaking so badly that she gave the keys to Harris-Rich
to open the register. Harris-Rich saw that defendant had what
appeared to be a screwdriver against Ms. Bolding's side. When
defendant realized there was only $78.00 in the register, he becameangry. As a customer was entering the motel, defendant ran out
yelling threats and profanities. Bolding stated that after
defendant left, she “was just shaking and crying so bad, [she]
didn't know what to do.” Harris-Rich chased defendant as far as
the Motel 6 which was next door before returning to the Red Roof
Inn. Police subsequently apprehended defendant in a nearby wooded
area. The money and the screwdriver were not recovered.
Dr. David Stewart, a clinical psychologist, reviewed
defendant's medical records and also examined him on 12 March 2003
and 23 April 2003. He testified that at the time of the robbery
defendant was having difficulty distinguishing what was real from
what was not. Because of this state of mind, Dr. Stewart opined
that defendant “did not have the specific intent when he walked in
of going and committing a robbery.” Dr. Stewart stated, however,
that defendant could appreciate the criminality of his conduct at
the time.
Defendant testified that he took various drugs all day on the
date in question. He remembered going to Greensboro to get crack
cocaine, but he did not remember how he ended up at the Red Roof
Inn. He went into the motel to get some money from a friend who
used to be the manager of a motel in Indiana. Defendant stated he
took either a screwdriver with a broken-off blunt tip or a
nutdriver in the motel with him. In order to make the two women at
the front desk think that he had something, defendant put the tool
under his shirt before demanding that they give him money.
Defendant did not remember grabbing either woman or using profanitywith them. He said he was so high that he did not know what he was
doing.
On 30 April 2003, a jury found defendant guilty of the charge
of robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court then imposed
a sentence of 103 to 133 months imprisonment. From the trial
court's judgment, defendant appeals.
Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred by
denying his motion to dismiss at the close of the evidence due to
insufficient evidence of two elements of the offense. In his first
argument, he asserts his evidence rebutted “any presumption raised
by the State's evidence that there was intent to deprive the Clerk
permanently of monies at the Red Roof Inn on June 6, 2002, by his
behavior.” In his second argument, defendant argues no weapon was
introduced into evidence, no verbal threats to harm the motel
employees with a weapon in his possession were made, and he
displayed no life-threatening weapon. Defendant's arguments are
not persuasive.
When ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, the trial
court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the
State; the State is entitled to every reasonable inference which
can be drawn from the evidence presented, and all contradictions
and discrepancies are resolved in the State's favor. State v.
Davis, 325 N.C. 693, 696-97, 386 S.E.2d 187, 189 (1989). Evidence
is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss when it gives “rise
to a reasonable inference of defendant's guilt based on the
circumstances.” State v. Styles, 93 N.C. App. 596, 603, 379 S.E.2d255, 260 (1989). Once sufficient evidence is adduced at trial, it
becomes a question for the jury. Id. “This test applies when the
evidence is circumstantial, direct, or both.” Id. Robbery with a
dangerous weapon is defined by N.C.G.S. § 14-87 (2002) “as the
taking of personal property of another, in his presence or from his
person, without his consent by endangering or threatening his life
with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, with the taker knowing he
is not entitled to the property and intending to permanently
deprive the owner of the property.” State v. Washington, 142 N.C.
App. 657, 660, 544 S.E.2d 249, 251 (2001). “The intent required
for the offense is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of
the property at the time of the taking.” State v. Mann, 355 N.C.
294, 303-04, 560 S.E.2d 776, 782, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1005, 154
L. Ed. 2d 403 (2002).
The State's evidence shows that defendant asked Conner to stop
at the Red Roof Inn on the date in question because he wanted to
see if he could get some money. He took a flat-head screwdriver
from the car, said he was going to try to get some money, and told
Conner to wait for him at an adjacent motel. After entering the
motel, he grabbed a motel employee, pressed the screwdriver into
her side and demanded that the register be opened. He fled into a
nearby wooded area after obtaining the money. Police were unable
to locate either the screwdriver or money after apprehending
defendant. While Dr. Stewart's testimony that defendant lacked
“the specific intent when he walked in of going and committing a
robbery” is some evidence to rebut the State's evidence, theapplicable standard is whether there was substantial evidence of
defendant's intent when the evidence is viewed in the light most
favorable to the State. See Davis, 325 N.C. at 696-97, 386 S.E.2d
at 189. Because the State's evidence gives rise to a reasonable
inference that defendant entered the motel and accosted the two
women with the intent to rob the motel, the trial court did not err
in denying defendant's motion to dismiss due to insufficient
evidence of intent to rob.
As for defendant's second argument, that the evidence
regarding the use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon was
insufficient, it also is not persuasive. In determining whether a
robbery with a particular implement is a violation of G.S. § 14-87,
“the determinative question is whether the evidence was sufficient
to support a jury finding that a person's life was in fact
endangered or threatened.” State v. Alston, 305 N.C. 647, 650, 290
S.E.2d 614, 616 (1982). An implement is a deadly weapon if it is
“likely to produce death or great bodily harm under the
circumstances of its use . . . .” State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55,
64, 243 S.E.2d 367, 373 (1978). “[W]hen the question of whether an
instrument might be deadly or produce great bodily harm turns on
its manner of use, the determination is a question of fact for a
jury.” State v. Cody, 135 N.C. App. 722, 727-28, 522 S.E.2d 777,
781 (1999).
The State's evidence was that defendant took a flat-head
screwdriver from Conner's car into the Red Roof Inn. Defendant
grabbed Bolding during the robbery, and she felt something sharpwhich she thought was a knife in her side. Harris-Rich observed
defendant holding what appeared to be a screwdriver against
Bolding. After defendant released Bolding and fled, she “was just
shaking and crying so bad, [she] didn't know what to do.”
Defendant himself testified he took either a blunt-tip screwdriver
or a nutdriver into the motel, and he described how he put it under
his shirt so that the two women would think he had something. When
viewed in the light most favorable to the State, this evidence
supported the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss
for insufficiency of the evidence. Whether the implement used or
as used by defendant would be likely to produce death or great
bodily harm was a conflict for the jury to resolve. See State v.
Palmer, 293 N.C. 633, 642-43, 239 S.E.2d 406, 412-13 (1977).
According, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to
dismiss and submitted the charge to the jury. Defendant received
a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.
No error.
Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and CALABRIA concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***