State v. Smallwood
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
EAGLES, Judge.
Of the four assignments argued, three relate to whether the knife used was a dangerous weapon. We conclude that because the evidence supported, but did not compel, a finding that the knife used was a dangerous weapon and there was no instruction on common law robbery, defendant is entitled to a new trial.
I
One of the elements of armed robbery is that the accused used or threatened to use a firearm or other dangerous weapon. G.S. 14-87(a). In fact, the courts have characterized the use of a dangerous weapon as the main element of the offense. See State v. Beaty, 306 N.C. 491, 293…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- State v. SturdivantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. PeacockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. AgnewSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. BeatySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. WigginsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. BellamyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
- State v. GrahamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- State v. RoddeyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
- Handy v. MarylandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.