State v. Ricks, 244 N.C. App. 742

On Oct. 6, 2011, victim Martin Amaya was offered a TV by Defendant Ricks, rode in Ricks’s car, and was later confronted by a second man who demanded money; Amaya testified he saw a black gun and threw $100 onto Ricks’s leg.
Amaya identified Ricks in a police show-up; officers recovered the victim’s money from Ricks’s pocket and Ricks confessed to trying to "scam" Amaya but denied a robbery or any gun.
Ricks was indicted for robbery with a dangerous weapon and for obtaining property by false pretenses; he later pled guilty to habitual felon status.
At trial the court instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of common-law robbery over Ricks’s objection; the jury convicted Ricks of common-law robbery and of obtaining property by false pretenses.
Ricks appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred by instructing on common-law robbery and (2) the false-pretense indictment was fatally defective because it described the property only as "a quantity of U.S. Currency."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ricks)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of common-law robbery	The State: evidence conflicted as to use of a dangerous weapon (victim said he saw a gun; defendant denied it), so a lesser-included instruction was appropriate	Ricks: no evidence supported the lesser offense; the State’s proof established armed robbery and giving a lesser instruction was improper	Court: No error — conflicting evidence about the weapon element made a common-law robbery instruction proper (trial court did not abuse its discretion)
Whether the indictment for obtaining property by false pretenses was fatally defective because it described the property only as "a quantity of U.S. Currency"	The State: statute and precedent allow money to be described simply as "money" or currency; "U.S. Currency" suffices to give notice	Ricks: description is too vague; indictment should state the amount (dollars and cents) to be sufficient under controlling precedent	Court: No error — under existing statute and precedent describing the thing obtained as "U.S. Currency" is sufficient; indictment not fatally defective (dissent would have vacated conviction on this count)

State v. Millsaps, 356 N.C. 556 (2002) (lesser-included instruction required only if evidence permits rational acquittal of greater and conviction of lesser)
State v. Reese, 83 N.C. 637 (1880) (historical rule that money should be described by amount in indictment)
State v. Smith, 219 N.C. 400 (1941) (indictment describing obtained property as "goods and things of value" was insufficient)
State v. Jones, 367 N.C. 299 (2014) (indictment alleging obtaining unspecified "services" by false pretenses was fatally defective; Supreme Court reiterated requirement that item be described with reasonable certainty)
State v. Ledwell, 171 N.C. App. 314 (2005) (upholding indictment describing property as "a quantity of U.S. Currency")
State v. Nicholson, 355 N.C. 1 (2002) (trial court’s choice of instructions reviewed for abuse of discretion)