An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA04-882


Filed: 1 February 2005


         v.                        Carteret County
                                Nos. 03 CRS 53077-78
STEPHEN GLEN ROSE                

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 7 January 2004 by Judge Jay D. Hockenbury in Carteret County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 January 2005.

    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 ***