State v. Joyner

140 Citing cases

  1. State v. Steen

    376 N.C. 469 (N.C. 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals because, in part, "the General Assembly ha[d] not taken any action tending to suggest" disagreement with prior appellate decisions interpreting the Statute at issue

    Finally, defendant argues that our prior decision in Pierce should either be overruled or limited to cases in which felonious child abuse serves as the predicate felony for purposes of the felony-murder rule. In seeking to persuade us to uphold the Court of Appeals’ decision with respect to the issue of whether hands and arms can serve as deadly weapons for purpose of the statutory version of the felony-murder rule embodied in N.C.G.S. § 14-17(a), the State begins by noting North Carolina's lengthy history of leaving the issue of whether a particular weapon qualifies as "deadly" for the jury's consideration. SeeState v. Joyner , 295 N.C. 55, 64–65, 243 S.E.2d 367, 373 (1978) (holding that an instrument's "allegedly deadly character" is a question "of fact to be determined by the jury"). In addition, the State cites decisions, such as State v. Brunson , 180 N.C. App. 188, 636 S.E.2d 202 (2006), aff'd per curiam , 362 N.C. 81, 653 S.E.2d 144 (2007), for the proposition that this Court has long "recognized that under certain circumstances, hands and other body parts may be deadly weapons for purposes of proving the deadly weapon element of assault offenses perpetrated with a deadly weapon."

  2. State v. Alexander

    337 N.C. 182 (N.C. 1994)   Cited 105 times
    Holding no plain error where the prosecutor asked a State's witness, a police officer, if the defendant spoke or talked to him, and noting that the comments were “relatively benign” and that the prosecutor did not emphasize that the defendant did not speak with law enforcement after his arrest

    "The term `inflicts serious injury,' under G.S. 14-32(b), means physical or bodily injury resulting from an assault with a deadly weapon." State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 65, 243 S.E.2d 367, 373 (1978) (quoting State v. Jones, 258 N.C. 89, 91, 128 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1962)). The Court in State v. Ferguson had earlier defined the term in this manner and noted that "`[f]urther definition seems neither wise nor desirable.'"

  3. State v. Joyner

    297 N.C. 349 (N.C. 1979)   Cited 163 times
    In State v. Joyner, 297 N.C. 349, 255 S.E.2d 390 (1979), for example, five men forced their way into a woman's home and committed a variety of sexual acts against her. One of the men also robbed her.

    We allowed his motion for initial review by this Court in the other matters pursuant to G.S. 7A-31(a). Other cases arising out of the same facts as this one but involving different defendants are State v. Sylvester Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978); State v. Curmon, 295 N.C. 453, 245 S.E.2d 503 (1978); and State v. Barnes, 297 N.C. 442, 255 S.E.2d 386 (1979). This case was docketed and argued as No. 24 at the Spring Term 1978.

  4. State v. Wright

    252 N.C. App. 501 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    However, our Supreme Court has previously rejected similar arguments. In State v. Joyner , 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978), the defendant argued on appeal that the trial court had erred by denying his motion for nonsuit on the charge of armed robbery. He contended that the State failed to prove the victim's life was endangered or threatened because the victim did not show that she was "in fear for her life at the time she surrendered her [property]...."

  5. State v. Jones

    707 S.E.2d 263 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)

    North Carolina General Statutes, section 14-87 sets forth the elements of robbery with a dangerous weapon: "(1) the unlawful taking or attempted taking of personal property from another; (2) the possession, use or threatened use of `firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement or means'; and (3) danger or threat to the life of the victim." State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 63, 243 S.E.2d 367, 373 (1978) (citation omitted). "The essential difference between armed robbery and common law robbery is that the former is accomplished by the use or threatened use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon whereby the life of a person is endangered or threatened."

  6. State v. Hill

    182 N.C. App. 88 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 18 times
    Recognizing that "[t]he assault . . . was made in an attempt to end Ms. Wright's pursuit of the merchandise taken from the Aldi's store."

    The elements of the crime of robbery with a dangerous weapon are: (1) the unlawful taking or attempted taking of personal property from another, (2) the possession, use or threatened use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, and (3) danger or threat to the life of the victim. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-87(a) (2005) ; State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 63, 243 S.E.2d 367, 373 (1978) .           First, defendant argues that she could not be guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon because the evidence was insufficient to prove that “Melanie Leach had a dangerous weapon in her possession at the time she obtained the property."

  7. State v. Jackson

    600 S.E.2d 899 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004)

    Id. The elements of robbery with a dangerous weapon are set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-87 (2003). Our Supreme Court stated in State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978): [T]he essentials of the offense set forth in G.S. 14-87 are (1) the unlawful taking or attempted taking of personal property from another; (2) the possession, use or threatened use of `firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement or means'; and (3) danger or threat to the life of the victim.

  8. State v. Yelverton

    592 S.E.2d 620 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004)

    The term "inflicts serious injury," as used in section 14-32(a), means "physical or bodily injury resulting from an assault with a deadly weapon." State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 65, 243 S.E.2d 367, 373 (1978); State v. Hensley, 90 N.C. App. 245, 248, 368 S.E.2d 208, 210 (1988). "The injury must be serious but it must fall short of causing death."

  9. State v. Ludlum

    303 N.C. 666 (N.C. 1981)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that "the Legislature intended by its use of the word cunnilingus to mean stimulation by the tongue or lips of any part of a woman’s genitalia" and not requiring penetration

    Defendant's argument to the contrary rests entirely on cases arising under G.S. 14-177 which proscribes and makes punishable "the crime against nature." The cases are State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55. 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978); State v. Whittemore, 255 N.C. 583, 122 S.E.2d 396 (1961), and State v. Fenner, 166 N.C. 247, 80 S.E. 970 (1914). In Fenner, the act in question was fellatio.

  10. State v. Gibbons

    303 N.C. 484 (N.C. 1981)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon

    We can find no case in which this Court has held or even implied that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is sufficient to support a charge of armed robbery. On the contrary, in the recent case of State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978), we recognized that possession and endangering or threatening are separate elements of the crime: The essentials of the offense set forth in G.S. 14-87 are (1) the unlawful taking or attempted taking of personal property from another; (2) the possession, use or threatened use of "firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement or means"; and (3) danger or threat to the life of the victim.