STATE v. ROBINSON (2020)

Defendant appeals her conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon. Because the State failed to present substantial evidence of each element of aiding and abetting the commission of the robbery with a dangerous weapon, the trial court should have granted defendant's motion to dismiss. We therefore reverse.

Defendant was tried jointly with the father of her child, Mr. Samuel Angram. Both were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon and robbery with a dangerous weapon based upon the robbery of Mr. Marvin Price. Mr. Angram's brother, Michael Angram was convicted of the armed robbery in a trial before the trial of defendant and Samuel Angram. Both defendant and Samuel Angram were convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon based upon aiding and abetting Michael Angram; both were acquitted of conspiracy to commit robbery.

We addressed Mr. Samuel Angram's appeal in State v. Angram, ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––– S.E.2d –––– (2020) (COA19-151), and reversed his conviction based upon insufficiency of the evidence. Here too, defendant contends the evidence against her was insufficient. The evidence against defendant here was the same as that against Mr. Angram. There is no material difference between the legal or evidentiary issues raised by defendant and Mr. Angram. Based on Angram, we reverse. See id. Because we are reversing defendant's conviction based upon insufficiency of the evidence, we need not address defendant's other issues on appeal.

REVERSED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

STROUD, Judge.

Judges ZACHARY and MURPHY concur.