State v. Mann
317 N.C. 164, 345 S.E.2d 365, 1986 N.C. LEXIS 2781 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Solicitation to commit an inherently infamous felony, such as common law robbery, is itself an infamous crime. The nature of the crime solicited determines whether the solicitation is infamous, and if so, it is punishable as a felony rather than a misdemeanor under N.C.G.S. § 14-3(b).
Facts:
- Charlie Mann met Penelope Dawkins and Richard Lockamy, learning that Lockamy had a criminal record and needed money.
- Mann repeatedly suggested to Lockamy that he rob Richard Braxton, an elderly man who Mann claimed carried large sums of money.
- Mann detailed a plan for the robbery, advising Lockamy to wait in a shed at Braxton's home and ambush him.
- To further the plan, Mann drove Lockamy to Braxton's home to show him the location.
- Mann also introduced Lockamy and Dawkins to Keith Barts, an acquaintance for whom Mann had previously arranged criminal jobs.
- Subsequently, Lockamy, Barts, and another man named John Holmes made one unsuccessful attempt to rob Braxton.
- On November 19, 1983, Keith Barts and his brother went to Braxton’s property, waited for him, and then beat him to death during a robbery, stealing approximately $3,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Charlie Mann was tried in a North Carolina superior court (trial court).
- The jury found Mann guilty of soliciting Richard Lockamy to commit common law robbery, but acquitted him of several other charges.
- The trial court sentenced Mann to a seven-year term of imprisonment, classifying the conviction as a Class H felony.
- Mann (appellant) appealed his sentence to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals found no error in the trial but held that the crime was a misdemeanor, not an infamous felony, and remanded the case for resentencing.
- The State of North Carolina (petitioner) sought, and was granted, discretionary review by the Supreme Court of North Carolina (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is solicitation to commit common law robbery an infamous crime under N.C.G.S. § 14-3(b), thereby elevating it from a misdemeanor to a felony for sentencing purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, J.
Yes. Solicitation to commit common law robbery is an infamous crime. The court determines whether a crime is 'infamous' by examining if it is an act of depravity, involves moral turpitude, and reveals a heart devoid of social duties and a mind fatally bent on mischief. In cases of solicitation, the court must look to the nature of the underlying offense being solicited. Because common law robbery—a crime involving theft by violence or fear—is undoubtedly an infamous crime, the act of counseling or inducing another to commit it is also an infamous crime. The court reasoned that a solicitor is often more morally culpable than the perpetrator, as they conceive the criminal idea and use another as an agent, thereby manifesting an intelligent and masterful approach to crime while insulating themselves from risk.
Concurring - Billings, J.
Yes, but with reservations. While compelled to agree with the majority due to precedent set in State v. Surles, the definition of an 'infamous crime' has become unconstitutionally vague. This broad interpretation allows the judiciary to decide which misdemeanors are felonies based on a subjective perception of the crime's depravity, making it impossible for citizens to anticipate the statute's application. The legislature should amend N.C.G.S. § 14-3 to provide a clearer, more objective definition of what constitutes an infamous crime, aligning it more closely with its original common law meaning.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the legal status of an inchoate crime like solicitation is derivative of the target offense. By classifying solicitation to commit robbery as an infamous felony, the court expands the reach of felony-level punishment to include those who mastermind violent crimes without participating in them directly. This precedent strengthens the state's ability to prosecute criminal planners and may influence how other inchoate crimes are classified and sentenced, emphasizing the moral culpability of the solicitor over that of the direct actor.
