State v. Murrell, 370 N.C. 187

On 13 Sept 2013 a man handed a PNC teller a note reading "armed" and demanded cash; teller gave bait money and a dye pack exploded in the getaway vehicle.
Surveillance, red dye stains on a vehicle registered to defendant's girlfriend, and marked bills recovered from a dumpster linked the defendant; he confessed and said he had been "provided" a small pistol that was never recovered.
A grand jury indicted Murrell for robbery with a dangerous weapon under N.C.G.S. § 14-87; the indictment described that it "reasonably appeared" to the victim that a dangerous weapon was in defendant's possession because he communicated he was "armed" in a note.
A jury convicted Murrell and the trial court sentenced him; on appeal Murrell argued the indictment was fatally defective for failing to allege an actual dangerous weapon.
The Court of Appeals arrested judgment on the armed-robbery count but remanded for conviction and resentencing on common-law robbery; the State sought review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Murrell)	Held
Whether indictment charging robbery with a dangerous weapon sufficiently alleged the presence/use/threatened use of a dangerous weapon	Indictment was sufficient because it alleged the victim reasonably believed defendant was armed (the note) and explicitly stated a "dangerous weapon" — satisfying Palmer's approaches	Indictment failed because it named no weapon, did not describe any implement as deadly, and merely alleged an appearance or implied threat rather than actual possession of a dangerous weapon	The indictment was fatally defective for failing to allege that defendant possessed, used, or threatened with an identifiable dangerous weapon; conviction for armed robbery could not stand (Court of Appeals affirmed)
Remedy/alternative charge	N/A	N/A	Because the indictment did adequately allege common-law robbery, the Court of Appeals remanded for entry of judgment and resentencing on common-law robbery

State v. Palmer, 293 N.C. 633 (indictments alleging use of a deadly weapon must either name the weapon or allege facts showing its deadly character)
State v. Brinson, 337 N.C. 764 (indictment naming a specific instrument and alleging resulting severe injury can demonstrate deadly character)
State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55 (a victim's reasonable perception that an item was a firearm can support inference of weapon use)
State v. Keller, 214 N.C. 447 (robbery with firearms requires as an element the presence of firearms or a dangerous weapon)
State v. Hinton, 361 N.C. 207 (State must prove defendant used an external dangerous weapon for § 14-87 conviction)
State v. Williams, 335 N.C. 518 (permissive inference/presumption that an implement appearing to be a firearm supports armed-robbery conviction, subject to rebuttal)
State v. Ellis, 368 N.C. 342 (indictment must allege all essential elements of the offense and is judged by its language alone)