Court Opinion

ID: 9609865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:32:42.166702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:52.908667
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice Sharp
dissenting:
The judge instructed the jury that it could return two of four verdicts: guilty or not guilty of breaking or entering; guilty or not guilty of felonious larceny. He did not submit the issue of defendant’s guilt of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been feloniously stolen, as charged in the third count of the indictment. The verdicts were not guilty of breaking or entering and guilty of felonious larceny.
Defendant assigns only three errors in his trial: (1) the denial of his motion to nonsuit all charges against him; (2) the denial of his motion for a mistrial after the court admitted (unspecified) “prejudicial” evidence; and (3) the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict because “there was no evidence” *320that defendant was guilty of larceny. In his brief in the Court of Appeals defendant’s only argument is that on the evidence the jury should have acquitted him.
The record in this case leaves me in no doubt that the defendant is guilty of the felonious breaking and entering and larceny charged in the bill of indictment. The State’s evidence and the adminicular circumstances are more than sufficient to show that while defendant’s two confederates feloniously broke and entered the Ketchie dwelling for the purpose of stealing property located therein, he drove the truck, which carried away the stolen television sets and other articles from the dwelling, up and down the road. State v. McNair, 272 N.C. 130, 157 S.E. 2d 660 (1967) ; State v. Peeden, 253 N.C. 562, 117 S.E. 2d 398 (1960). Notwithstanding, the jury acquitted defendant of breaking and entering. Their request for further instructions suggests to me that they were confused by the charge, but — be that as it may — we are not at liberty to disregard their verdict.
Defendant has assigned no error to the charge, but in his brief filed in this Court he notes correctly that Judge Wood failed to instruct the jury that if they acquitted defendant of felonious breaking and entering, but found him guilty of larceny, they “must also determine that the value of the goods stolen was in excess of $200 in order to find defendant guilty of felonious larceny.” Appellant’s sole contention here is that defendant “must be returned to the Superior Court to be sentenced as a misdemeanant as the law clearly dictates.” With the contention, I agree. It was for this purpose only that we allowed certiorari.
In this case, to convict defendant of felonious larceny, G.S. 14-72 obliges the jury to find either that the stolen property had a value in excess of $200 or that defendant acquired the property pursuant to a felonious breaking or entering for which he himself is criminally responsible. State v. Jones, 275 N.C. 432, 168 S.E. 2d 380 (1969). The jury made neither finding. In my view State v. Jones requires that this case be remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions that it be returned to the Superior Court for the pronouncement of judgment as upon a verdict of guilty of misdemeanor-larceny.
Justices Moore and Copeland join in this dissent.