Circumstantial evidence supports robbery conviction after violent assault

The North Carolina Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence, including a violent assault, the victim’s immediate loss of property, and evidence of a prior similar act, was sufficient to support a reasonable inference of robbery and defeat the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The case arose from an attack in which the victim was struck in the head with a gun, beaten, and left unconscious in the road. Before the assault, the victim had his phone, cash and house key. When he regained consciousness, those items were gone. The state presented evidence that the defendant was one of the main assailants and that he personally struck the victim with a firearm. The state also introduced Rule 404(b) evidence that the defendant had previously committed a similar robbery by striking another victim with a handgun and taking property.

At trial, the defendant argued the state had failed to show that he, or anyone acting with him, actually took the victim’s belongings. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the evidence established only an opportunity to commit the theft.

The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. It emphasized that the state faces a low burden at the motion to dismiss stage and need show only more than a scintilla of evidence permitting a reasonable inference of guilt. The court said both direct and circumstantial evidence may satisfy that standard and that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the state as a whole, not piece by piece.

Applying that framework, the court found the evidence went beyond speculation. The defendant’s violent assault on the victim, combined with the victim’s possession of the items immediately beforehand and their disappearance when he awoke, supported a reasonable inference that the taking was part of a continuous chain of events tied to the assault. The Rule 404(b) evidence further supported an inference of intent to rob. Competing explanations, the court said, were for the jury to weigh.

The 26 page opinion is State of North Carolina v. Perry, Lawyers Weekly No. 010-009-26.