STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Carteret County
Nos. 03 CRS 53077-78
STEPHEN GLEN ROSE
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Sonya M. Allen, for the State.
Sue Genrich Berry for defendant-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
On 18 June 2003, Margaret Ann Davis and Marcella Willis were
working at the Handy House Number Two convenience store in Smyrna,
North Carolina. Sometime around 11:30 p.m., the door swung open
and a man entered wearing a mask over his face, a toboggan on his
head, and dressed in a camouflage coat. The man shoved Davis down
the aisle, put his hand in his pocket and threatened to shoot her.
He told her to open the cash register and give him the money.
Willis came over, opened the register, and the man took the money
and ran. The next day, defendant was arrested for the offenses of
robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault on a female. On 30 June 2003, defendant was indicted for common law robbery
and assault on a female. The robbery indictment stated:
The jurors for the State upon their oath
present that on or about the date of the
offense shown and in the county named above
the defendant named above unlawfully,
willfully and feloniously did steal, take, and
carry away and attempt to steal, take and
carry away another's personal property, U.S.
currency of the value of approximately $187.00
dollars, from the person and presence of
Marcella Willis by violence and by putting the
victim in fear of bodily harm by threat of
violence.
Defendant was convicted of common law robbery and assault on
a female and sentenced to a term of twenty-one to twenty-six months
imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
Defendant argues that the indictment was insufficient to
confer jurisdiction on the trial court because it failed to allege
all the essential elements of the crime charged. Specifically,
defendant asserts that the indictment fails to allege that the
money was the property of the Handy House convenience store, or
that the money was in the presence of Willis as an employee of the
store. Accordingly, defendant contends that the indictment does
not sufficiently allege that the property taken did not belong to
him.
After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of
the parties, we find no error. Defendant was charged with common
law robbery. An indictment must contain facts supporting each
element of the criminal offense. N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-924(a)(5)
(2003). The elements of common law robbery are: “(1) felonious,
non-consensual taking of (2) money or other personal property (3)from the person or presence of another (4) by means of force.”
State v. Robertson, 138 N.C. App. 506, 508, 531 S.E.2d 490, 492
(2000), cert. denied, __ N.C. __, 560 S.E.2d 357-58 (2002). Here,
defendant contends that the indictment was insufficient because it
did not identify the owner of the property, or that Willis was an
employee of the Handy House store when the property was taken.
However, “there is no requirement that the person from whom the
property is taken be the owner thereof. As long as it can be shown
defendant was not taking his own property, ownership need not be
laid in a particular person to allege and prove robbery.” State v.
Pratt, 306 N.C. 673, 681, 295 S.E.2d 462, 467 (1982)(citations
omitted). “The key inquiry is whether the indictment in the present
case is sufficient to negate the idea that the defendant was taking
his own property.” State v. Bartley, 156 N.C. App. 490, 500, 577
S.E.2d 319, 325 (2003). We conclude that the language in the
indictment was sufficient to do so. Accordingly, the assignment of
error is overruled.
No error.
Judges McCULLOUGH and CALABRIA concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***