## Facts

- A woman returned to her apartment complex, parked, and was approached by Travis Markee Lennon.
- The State’s evidence was that Lennon displayed a black handgun, told her to stay calm, and demanded her iPhone and wallet, taking a debit card and grocery card.
- After she said she had no cash, Lennon forced her into her apartment to obtain the phone charger and directed her to search for valuables; he took an MP3 player and charger and obtained the debit-card PIN.
- Lennon had her escort him out and told her to remain in her car until he left; she then contacted police and provided a license plate number and description.
- Police located and arrested Lennon using the plate information and phone tracking; the victim later identified him.
- Lennon testified the encounter began consensually: he offered to help carry belongings, was invited inside, and took property without a gun, threats, or force.
- A jury convicted Lennon of armed robbery, second-degree kidnapping, and felony breaking or entering.
- Lennon requested jury instructions on larceny from the person and misdemeanor larceny as lesser-included offenses of armed robbery; the trial court refused and instructed only on common-law robbery as a lesser-included offense.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on larceny from the person and misdemeanor larceny as lesser-included offenses of armed robbery.
2. Whether there was any evidence from which a rational juror could find Lennon guilty of a lesser theft offense rather than armed robbery (or common-law robbery).
3. Whether the instructional error required a new trial on the armed robbery charge and affected any other convictions.

## Decision

- The court reversed the armed robbery conviction and remanded for a new trial on that charge.
- The court held the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct on larceny from the person and misdemeanor larceny.
- The court affirmed the convictions for second-degree kidnapping and felony breaking or entering.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense when there is evidence from which the jury could find the defendant committed the lesser offense, even if the State’s evidence supports the greater offense.
- A trial court need not instruct on a lesser offense when the evidence supports all elements of the charged offense and there is no evidence supporting the lesser offense.
- Where conflicting evidence creates a factual dispute over an element distinguishing robbery from larceny (such as the use of force, threats, or a weapon), the jury must be permitted to consider supported lesser theft offenses.
- Refusing supported lesser-included instructions can be prejudicial when it limits the jury to “all-or-nothing” options that do not match the defense version of events.

## Conclusion

Because Lennon’s testimony, if believed, supported a taking without threats, force, or a weapon, the jury should have been instructed on larceny from the person and misdemeanor larceny; the failure to do so required a new trial on armed robbery, while the kidnapping and breaking-or-entering convictions remained intact.


State v. Lennon, 767 S.E.2d 150 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)