An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 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 Procedure.

NO. COA14-337

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 21 October 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Mecklenburg County

Nos. 11 CRS 242221-22, 24

TAVARES LAQUIN JETER

Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 16 July 2013 by 

Judge Eric L. Levinson in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. 

Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 September 2014.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General 

Phyllis A. Turner, for the State.

Bryan E. Gates, Jr. for defendant-appellant.

McCULLOUGH, Judge.

Defendant Tavares Laquin Jeter appeals from the judgments 

entered after a jury found him guilty of robbery with a 

dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous 

weapon, and felonious breaking or entering. Defendant contends 

the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the 

robbery charge because the State’s evidence showed he took no 

active role in the commission of the offense. We find no error.
-2-

At about noon on 15 September 2011, Gary Parsons opened his 

front door and was attacked by two men who were waiting outside. 

Mr. Parsons saw a gold Chevrolet parked in front of his house. 

The men “bum-rushed” Mr. Parsons, then punched him repeatedly 

and used a taser or stun gun to subdue him and drag him into a 

bathroom. Mr. Parsons suffered injuries to his head and neck. 

During the struggle, two more men, including defendant, came 

into the house. The men did not interfere with the attack. A 

few days later, Mr. Parsons identified defendant in a 

photographic lineup and indicated he was seventy to eighty 

percent (70 – 80%) certain of the identification. Mr. Parsons 

described defendant as albino.

While Mr. Parsons was in the bathroom, he could hear 

footsteps throughout the house. After about five minutes, Mr. 

Parsons heard the house’s front door slam and emerged from the 

bathroom to find that several items were missing from his home, 

including a television, laptops, and a cell phone. One of Mr. 

Parsons’ neighbors saw defendant exit Mr. Parsons’ home and 

leave in a gold Chevrolet, and another neighbor saw an albino 

man get into a gold car. After the men left, Mr. Parsons went 

to a neighbor’s house to get help.
-3-

At about the same time as the robbery, an undercover police 

officer working in Mr. Parsons’ neighborhood saw a gold 

Chevrolet traveling at a high rate of speed toward I-485 and 

followed it until a license plate check revealed no outstanding 

warrants or other reason to follow it. A few minutes later, the 

officer heard about the robbery at Mr. Parsons’ home and the 

description of the getaway car, so he and another officer waited 

at the address listed on the car’s registration. At about 2:00, 

a gold Chevrolet arrived at the address. The car’s occupants 

went inside the house for about fifteen minutes, then returned 

to the car and went to a fast food restaurant. When officers in 

marked police cars attempted to block the car in the restaurant 

parking lot, it sped away. After a short chase, the driver fled 

on foot, but officers were able to detain a female passenger and 

the car. In the trunk, officers found a television and 

computers. Defendant’s fingerprints were lifted from the base

of the television. Officers also found a cell phone in the car 

that had defendant’s phone number saved as a contact.

A jury found defendant guilty of robbery with a dangerous 

weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, 

and breaking or entering. The trial court sentenced defendant 

to an active term of 51 to 71 months imprisonment for the 
-4-

robbery conviction. The trial court consolidated the remaining 

convictions into a judgment imposing 20 to 33 months 

imprisonment, suspended the sentence, and placed defendant on 30 

months of supervised probation. Defendant appeals.

In his sole argument, defendant contends the trial court 

erred by denying his motion to dismiss the robbery charge 

because there was no evidence he took an active role in the 

crime. We disagree.

“When a defendant moves to dismiss a charge against him on 

the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court 

must determine ‘whether there is substantial evidence of each 

essential element of the offense charged and of the defendant 

being the perpetrator of the offense.’” State v. Garcia, 358 

N.C. 382, 412, 597 S.E.2d 724, 746 (2004) (citation omitted), 

cert. denied sub nom Garcia v. North Carolina, 543 U.S. 1156, 

161 L. Ed. 2d 122 (2005). “In reviewing challenges to the 

sufficiency of evidence, [the appellate court] must view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the 

State the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” State v. 

Scott, 356 N.C. 591, 596, 573 S.E.2d 866, 869 (2002) (citation 

omitted). “The test of the sufficiency of the evidence to 

withstand the defendant’s motion to dismiss is the same whether 
-5-

the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or both.” State v. 

Vause, 328 N.C. 231, 237, 400 S.E.2d 57, 61 (1991).

Armed robbery is defined by statute:

Any person or persons who, having in 

possession or with the use or threatened use 

of any firearms or other dangerous weapon, 

implement or means, whereby the life of a 

person is endangered or threatened, 

unlawfully takes or attempts to take 

personal property from another or from any 

place of business, residence or banking 

institution or any other place where there 

is a person or persons in attendance, at any 

time, either day or night, or who aids or 

abets any such person or persons in the 

commission of such crime, shall be guilty of 

a Class D felony.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-87(a) (2013) (emphasis added); see State v. 

Willis, 127 N.C. App. 549, 551, 492 S.E.2d 43, 44 (1997) 

(defining the essential elements of armed robbery). “By its 

express terms G.S. 14-87 extends to one who aids and abets in an 

attempt to commit armed robbery.” State v. Dowd, 28 N.C. App. 

32, 38, 220 S.E.2d 393, 397 (1975).

Our courts have defined aiding and abetting:

A person is not guilty of a crime merely 

because he is present at the scene even 

though he may silently approve of the crime 

or secretly intend to assist in its 

commission; to be guilty he must aid or 

actively encourage the person committing the 

crime or in some way communicate to this 

person his intention to assist in its 

commission. The communication or intent to 
-6-

aid does not have to be shown by express 

words of the defendant but may be inferred 

from his actions and from his relation to 

the actual perpetrators.

State v. Goode, 350 N.C. 247, 260, 512 S.E.2d 414, 422 (1999) 

(citations omitted).

Although defendant is correct that mere presence at a crime 

scene is insufficient to support an inference of guilt, the 

evidence in this case was sufficient to withstand defendant’s 

motion to dismiss the robbery charge. Although Mr. Parsons 

testified that defendant did not take an active role in beating 

him and he did not witness the perpetrators take property, the 

evidence supports an inference that defendant aided his 

accomplices in robbing Mr. Parsons.

First, defendant and another man entered the house together 

minutes after the first two men rushed the door and attacked Mr. 

Parsons. During the assault on Mr. Parsons, during which the 

two assailants struck Mr. Parsons and used a stun gun to subdue 

him, defendant stood just a few feet away without intervening or 

protesting. Mr. Parsons identified defendant and saw a gold 

Chevrolet parked in front of his house at the time of the 

offense. Other witnesses saw defendant leave the house and get 

in a gold Chevrolet, and police officers later recovered the 

stolen property from a gold Chevrolet. Most significantly, the 
-7-

perpetrators took a television and other property from Mr. 

Parsons’ home, and defendant’s fingerprints were on the 

television police recovered from the gold Chevrolet. Finally, 

defendant’s phone number was saved as a contact on a cell phone 

found in the car.

All of this evidence, taken together and in the light most 

favorable to the State, demonstrates that defendant had a

relationship with his accomplices and took an active role in 

removing the stolen property from Mr. Parsons’ home. 

Accordingly, defendant was more than a mere bystander to the 

commission of the robbery and we find no error in the trial 

court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the armed 

robbery charge.

No error.

Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).