Preview:

NO. COA12-448 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 December 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARY COLEMAN GRIER Mecklenburg County Nos. 11 CRS 3120-22, 15002

1.

Larceny -- chose in action -- forgery -- not mutually exclusive offenses -- valid instrument not required There was no plain error in a prosecution for larceny of a chose in action, forgery, and uttering a forged paper or instrument where the trial court failed to instruct the jury that larceny of a chose in action required a valid instrument or that the crimes were mutually exclusive.

2.

Larceny -- chose in action -- blank check -- evidence not sufficient The theft of a blank check does not support a claim for larceny of a chose in action and there was no evidence that defendant committed larceny of a chose in action when she took a check from the victim's checkbook and cashed it for $465.00. There was no evidence that the check evidenced any debt or obligation prior to the taking.

NO. COA12-448 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 December 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARY COLEMAN GRIER Mecklenburg County Nos. 11 CRS 3120-22, 15002

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 14 September 2011 by Judge W. Robert Bell in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 October 2012. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Perry J. Pelaez, for the State. Michael E. Casterline for defendant-appellant. BRYANT, Judge. Because the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury that the crime of forgery, uttering, and larceny of a chose in action were mutually exclusive crimes, we affirm the trial court. Because defendant did not feloniously steal, take

and carry away, or take by robbery a chose in action, we reverse the judgment entered against defendant on the charge of larceny of a chose in action.

-2The evidence presented at trial tended to show that, on 18 October 2010, Thera Wright

Download 12-448.pdf

North Carolina Law