Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Barrett

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

June 18, 2019

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
JEFFERY JAMAR BARRETT

          Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 May 2019.

          Appeal by defendant from judgment entered by Judge Stanley L. Allen in Guilford County No. 15 CRS 068072 Superior Court.

          Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Sage A. Boyd, for the State.

          James R. Parish for defendant-appellant.

          TYSON, JUDGE.

         Jeffery Jamar Barrett ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment entered following a jury's conviction for one count of common law robbery. We affirm the lower court's decision and find no error.

         I. Background

         A man entered into a Taco Bell restaurant located on Battleground Avenue in Greensboro and stole cash from the register on 8 February 2015. Greensboro police officers used Carlo, a trained tracking dog, to follow the thief's scent. Officer McNeal, the dog's handler at the time, testified to Carlo's 2, 000 hours of training and to Carlo's more than 1, 000 deployment searches.

         Officer Douglas responded to the robbery by establishing a perimeter and looking for suspects. Officer McNeal and Carlo located a sweatshirt, a toboggan, gloves, and two bank bags. He observed Defendant walking down the street within the perimeter. Officer Douglas stopped Defendant, patted him down for weapons, and noticed copious amounts of cash in his pockets that was organized by its face value.

         Officer Rodriguez collected the evidence, photographed the items found by Carlo, and took a swab of Defendant's DNA. Greensboro police officers sent the evidence and the DNA swab to the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory.

         A forensic scientist at the crime lab generated a DNA profile from the swab and compared it to DNA found on the recovered items. She concluded that the DNA profile on the glove was consistent with two individuals and that Defendant could not be excluded as a contributor to the multiple major profiles.

         Defendant also made a phone call while in custody, which Detective Tyndall subsequently reviewed. Defendant recalled the circumstances of his arrest for robbery on 8 February 2015 and discussed the shoes he had worn during the incident.

         A jury convicted Defendant and returned a verdict of guilty to one count of common law robbery. He was sentenced to a minimum of fourteen months and a maximum of twenty-six months ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.