STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Guilford County
No. 02 CRS 96841
ANTONIO LEE
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General William H. Borden, for the State.
Samuel L. Bridges, for defendant-appellant.
CALABRIA, Judge.
Antonio Lee (“d
efendant”) was found guilty of possession of a
stolen motor vehicle and was sentenced to an active term of a
minimum of eight months and a maximum of ten months in the North
Carolina Department of Correction. We find no error.
The State presented evidence tending to show that in August
2002, Mary Gurganus (“Gurganus”) consigned her 1998 Land Rover
sports utility vehicle (“Land Rover”) for sale at Affordable Auto
in Rocky Mount. Gurganus saw the Land Rover on Affordable Auto's
lot
on 16 August 2002. However, during a conversation with the
owner of Affordable Auto on 19 August 2002, they ascertained the
Land Rover was missing when the owner informed Gurganus that hethought she had taken the Land Rover to use during the weekend.
Thereafter, they contacted the Rocky Mount Police Department.
Ricky Strickland (“Strickland”), a salesperson for Affordable
Auto, testified that a man, whom he identified as defendant, came
to the lot, and they test drove Gurganus' vehicle. Defendant asked
for a bill of sale. Strickland left the key to the vehicle with
defendant while he returned to his office to retrieve the requested
documents. In the meantime, defendant looked at another vehicle.
Strickland returned and gave the document to defendant, defendant
handed Strickland what appeared to be the keys to both vehicles,
and defendant departed. After the Land Rover was discovered
missing, Strickland learned that one of the keys defendant handed
him was not the appropriate key for the Land Rover.
Kenneth Ray Key, Jr., manager and maintenance man at Summit
Station Apartments in Greensboro, testified that on or about 11
September 2002, he witnessed defendant park a white Land Rover
vehicle in a parking lot near the apartments. Defendant aroused
Key's suspicions by jumping over the fence to enter the apartment
complex instead of driving the vehicle into the complex. Key
contacted the Greensboro Police Department and reported what he
saw.
Officers Joseph Garrison and A.P. Hallinan of the Greensboro
Police Department responded to a dispatch to the Summit Station
Apartments. As they interviewed Mr. Key at the apartment complex,
they saw a man matching the description given by Mr. Key. They
stopped the man, whom they identified as defendant, and asked himwhether he lived at the complex. Defendant responded that he was
visiting a friend. The officers observed that defendant was
holding a vehicle key. They asked defendant whether he had any
information about the white Land Rover parked on the other side of
the fence. Defendant responded negatively. Officer Garrison
decided to detain defendant for further investigation. As Officer
Garrison placed his hand on defendant's wrist to handcuff him,
defendant jerked his arm away and ran. The officers pursued
defendant and apprehended him. During a patdown search of
defendant, Officer Hallinan found a vehicle key in defendant's
pocket.
Office Hallinan further testified that the key opened the door
to the white Land Rover and turned the ignition. Officer Hallinan
also entered the license plate number of the Land Rover into a
mobile digital terminal which is interfaced with the Department of
Motor Vehicles. The terminal returned a report that the vehicle
had been reported stolen.
Defendant did not present any evidence.
By his sole assignment of error, defendant contends the court
erred by denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence.
In deciding a motion to dismiss, t
he trial court determines whether
there is substantial evidence to establish each element of the
offense charged and to identify the defendant as the perpetrator.
State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 65-66, 296 S.E.2d 649, 651 (1982).
In making this determination, the court must consider the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State, giving it the benefit ofevery reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence.
State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 566, 313 S.E.2d 585, 587 (1984).
Contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence are to be
disregarded and left for resolution by a jury. State v. Powell,
299 N.C. 95, 99, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980).
An accused is guilty of possession of a stolen motor vehicle
in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-106 if he (1) possesses (2) a
stolen motor vehicle and (3) has knowledge or reason to believe
that the vehicle has been stolen. State v. Bailey, 157 N.C. App.
80, 83-84, 577 S.E.2d 683, 686 (2003). That defendant possessed
the Land Rover in Greensboro is established by evidence that he had
the key to the vehicle on his person and he had been seen leaving
the vehicle. That he knew or had reason to believe the Land Rover
was stolen is established by evidence that he fled when the
questioning by the police officers focused on the vehicle. See
State v. Parker, 316 N.C. 295, 304, 341 S.E.2d 555, 560 (1986)
(evidence of the defendant's flight permitted a reasonable
inference that the defendant knew or had reason to know a vehicle
was stolen).
Defendant contends the evidence fails to establish that the
Land Rover discovered in defendant's possession in Greensboro was
the same vehicle which was stolen from the lot of Affordable Auto
in Rocky Mount. We disagree. Gurganus testified that the white
Land Rover automobile which was recovered in Greensboro and
returned to her was her white Land Rover vehicle which had been
taken from the lot of Affordable Auto
without her permission. Officer Hallinan testified that the license plate number on the
Land Rover recovered in Greensboro was the same as the license
plate number of “the vehicle that had been stolen.” Detective
Larry Woodley of the Rocky Mount Police Department also identified
the vehicle as the same vehicle that was stolen in Rocky Mount.
Based upon the foregoing evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude
that the vehicle which was recovered in Greensboro was the same
vehicle which was stolen in Rocky Mount.
We hold the evidence is sufficient to withstand the motion to
dismiss. We overrule the assignment of error.
No error.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***