armed robbery instruction in North Carolina

2022Given in connection with the entire jury instruction, the trial court’s jury instruction substantively included an instruction regarding identity. [The] [d]efendants cannot show that the trial court’s failure to give a separate instruction on identity beyond that included in the armed robbery instruction caused the jury to reach a verdict convicting [the] defendants that it probably would not have reached had a separate instruction been given.”), disc. rev. denied sub nom, State v. Whitaker, 366 N.C. 413 , 736 S.E.2d 175 (2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 952 , 185 L.

2022Given in connection with the entire jury instruction, the trial court’s jury instruction substantively included an instruction regarding identity. [The] [d]efendants cannot show that the trial court’s failure to give a separate instruction on identity beyond that included in the armed robbery instruction caused the jury to reach a verdict convicting [the] defendants that it probably would not have reached had a separate instruction been given.”), disc. rev. denied sub nom, State v. Whitaker, 366 N.C. 413 , 736 S.E.2d 175 (2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 952 , 185 L.

2022Given in connection with the entire jury instruction, the trial court’s jury instruction substantively included an instruction regarding identity. [The] [d]efendants cannot show that the trial court’s failure to give a separate instruction on identity beyond that included in the armed robbery instruction caused the jury to reach a verdict convicting [the] defendants that it probably would not have reached had a separate instruction been given.”), disc. rev. denied sub nom, State v. Whitaker, 366 N.C. 413 , 736 S.E.2d 175 (2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 952 , 185 L.

2022Given in connection with the entire jury instruction, the trial court’s jury instruction substantively included an instruction regarding identity. [The] [d]efendants cannot show that the trial court’s failure to give a separate instruction on identity beyond that included in the armed robbery instruction caused the jury to reach a verdict convicting [the] defendants that it probably would not have reached had a separate instruction been given.”), disc. rev. denied sub nom, State v. Whitaker, 366 N.C. 413 , 736 S.E.2d 175 (2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 952 , 185 L.

2022Given in connection with the entire jury instruction, the trial court’s jury instruction substantively included an instruction regarding identity. [The] [d]efendants cannot show that the trial court’s failure to give a separate instruction on identity beyond that included in the armed robbery instruction caused the jury to reach a verdict convicting [the] defendants that it probably would not have reached had a separate instruction been given.”), disc. rev. denied sub nom, State v. Whitaker, 366 N.C. 413 , 736 S.E.2d 175 (2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 952 , 185 L.

2022Given in connection with the entire jury instruction, the trial court’s jury instruction substantively included an instruction regarding identity. [The] [d]efendants cannot show that the trial court’s failure to give a separate instruction on identity beyond that included in the armed robbery instruction caused the jury to reach a verdict convicting [the] defendants that it probably would not have reached had a separate instruction been given.”), disc. rev. denied sub nom, State v. Whitaker, 366 N.C. 413 , 736 S.E.2d 175 (2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 952 , 185 L.

2022Given in connection with the entire jury instruction, the trial court’s jury instruction substantively included an instruction regarding identity. [The] [d]efendants cannot show that the trial court’s failure to give a separate instruction on identity beyond that included in the armed robbery instruction caused the jury to reach a verdict convicting [the] defendants that it probably would not have reached had a separate instruction been given.”), disc. rev. denied sub nom, State v. Whitaker, 366 N.C. 413 , 736 S.E.2d 175 (2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 952 , 185 L.

2022Given in connection with the entire jury instruction, the trial court’s jury instruction substantively included an instruction regarding identity. [The] [d]efendants cannot show that the trial court’s failure to give a separate instruction on identity beyond that included in the armed robbery instruction caused the jury to reach a verdict convicting [the] defendants that it probably would not have reached had a separate instruction been given.”), disc. rev. denied sub nom, State v. Whitaker, 366 N.C. 413 , 736 S.E.2d 175 (2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 952 , 185 L.

2021MCLYMORE 2021-NCCOA-425 Opinion of the Court This argument has been rejected by our appellate courts under similar factual circumstances. ¶ 10 In State v. Harding, 258 N.C.

2021MCLYMORE 2021-NCCOA-425 Opinion of the Court This argument has been rejected by our appellate courts under similar factual circumstances. ¶ 10 In State v. Harding, 258 N.C.

2006Here, as in Davis , evidence was admitted that defendant participated in an armed robbery a week prior to participating in the armed robbery at bar. 340 N.C. at 14, 455 S.E.2d at 633 .

2004In State v. Potter, 285 N.C. 238 , 204 S.E.2d 649 (1974), our Supreme Court held that “when the lives of all employees in a store are threatened and endangered by the use or threatened use of a firearm incident to the theft of their employer’s money or property, a single robbery with firearms is committed.” Thus, pursuant to our Supreme Court’s decision in Potter , Defendant was subjected to multiple punishments for a single armed robbery in violation of the double jeopardy clause.

2004In State v. Potter, 285 N.C. 238 , 204 S.E.2d 649 (1974), our Supreme Court held that “when the lives of all employees in a store are threatened and endangered by the use or threatened use of a firearm incident to the theft of their employer’s money or property, a single robbery with firearms is committed.” Thus, pursuant to our Supreme Court’s decision in Potter , Defendant was subjected to multiple punishments for a single armed robbery in violation of the double jeopardy clause.