Criminal Practice – Armed Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Flight – Gun’s Operability

State v. Bettis. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-07-0871, 13 pp.) (Donna S. Stroud, J.) Appealed from Wake County Superior Court. (Howard E. Manning Jr., J.) N.C. App.

Holding: Even though there was no direct evidence that defendant committed the armed robbery, since a masked suspect sped away in defendant’s car and eluded police after wrecking the car (in which a gun and mask were found), and since defendant called the police to report his car as stolen, and then admitted his car had not been stolen, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to go to the jury on the issue of the identity of the armed robber.

No error in defendant’s convictions of possession of a firearm by a felon and robbery with a dangerous weapon.

Defendant fails to direct us to any case law providing that circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s identity cannot be used to establish flight. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

As there was no evidence to indicate the gun recovered from defendant’s car was inoperable, the presumption that the victim’s life was endangered or threatened was mandatory. The state did not need to affirmatively demonstrate that the gun recovered from defendant’s car was inoperable.