State v. Williams, 201 N.C. App. 161 (Dec. 8, 2009)

Distinguishing State v. Holland, 234 N.C. 354 (1951), and State v. Murphy, 225 N.C. 115 (1945), in which the victims were rendered unconscious by the defendants and regained consciousness bereft of their property, the court held that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant was the perpetrator of the robbery. Shoe prints placed the defendant at the scene, he admitted that he was with the victim on the morning in question, a receipt found at the scene bearing the defendant’s name indicated that he was in the area at the time, a crack pipe with the victim’s DNA was found in the defendant’s vehicle, the defendant matched the description given by the victim to investigators, a third party encountered the defendant at the scene not long after the events occurred, and the defendant told conflicting stories to investigators.