James gives his friend Angela some money to purchase drugs. Angela doesn’t get the drugs and doesn’t return the money. James then comes to Angela’s house to confront her and get his money back, barging into the house and threatening her with a gun. James ultimately leaves without any money but is soon charged with attempted armed robbery. He testifies at trial that he had no intent to commit robbery; he was simply trying to get his property back. Angela admits on the stand that she had the money and never returned it or bought the drugs. James moves to dismiss, arguing that the State’s evidence is insufficient to establish any felonious intent—because he had a legitimate claim to the property, he couldn’t have committed robbery. [poll id="23"] Cast your vote, and read on for the answer. The question is roughly based on the facts in State v. Cox, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (March 5, 2019). According to the Cox court, the answer is c): where the uncontroverted evidence showed that the defendant had no intent to steal, he could not be found guilty of robbery. The court therefore reversed the defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery based on a lack of evidence of the defendant’s wrongful intent. Let’s unpack that a bit. Robbery is a specific intent crime. Robbery requires an unlawful taking. See G.S. 14-87; State v. Lawrence, 262 N.C. 162 (1964). Whether a taking is unlawful depends on the defendant’s intent—if the defendant [...]
Faculty Coordinators
