## Facts

- Two men robbed a Shoney’s restaurant in Greensboro, North Carolina, in the early morning of April 9, 1977.
- The State’s evidence included accomplice Thomas Avant’s testimony that he and George Edward Patterson planned the robbery, drove to the restaurant, and entered together.
- During the robbery, one robber announced a “stick up” and forced a supervisor into an office; Patterson was described as armed with a .22 caliber pistol.
- When the manager could not open the safe, Patterson struck him on the head with the pistol; Avant took money from the cash register.
- The robbers confined employees in a cold storage room and left.
- Police separately worked with four eyewitnesses to create “Identikit” facial composites by selecting and adjusting facial features until each witness agreed the image matched the robber’s appearance.
- At Patterson’s 1989 trial for robbery with a firearm, the composite drawings were admitted, and the jury convicted him; he received a life sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by inquiring into the jury’s numerical division during reported deadlock and by refusing to declare a mistrial.
2. Whether Identikit composite drawings were inadmissible hearsay or lacked proper foundation.
3. Whether evidence suggesting avoidance of apprehension and a jury instruction on flight were unsupported and prejudicial.
4. Whether the indictment sufficiently alleged the elements of robbery with a firearm so as to support jurisdiction and judgment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the conviction and life sentence.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in addressing the jury’s difficulty reaching a verdict; the supplemental instructions were not coercive.
- The court held the Identikit composites were properly admitted as illustrative evidence authenticated by witnesses who were available for cross-examination; any error was, in any event, nonprejudicial.
- The court held the evidence supported submitting flight to the jury and the instruction was proper.
- The court held the indictment adequately alleged the essential elements of robbery with a firearm and was valid.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court may encourage further deliberations by a deadlocked jury if, viewed in context, the instruction does not coerce a verdict or pressure jurors to abandon sincerely held convictions; mistrial decisions in this setting are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Composite drawings created with police assistance may be admitted as demonstrative/illustrative evidence when eyewitnesses authenticate them as fair representations of the perpetrator’s appearance and can be cross-examined about the process and result.
- A flight instruction is permissible when evidence supports a reasonable inference that the defendant took steps to avoid apprehension; the instruction must leave it to the jury to decide whether flight occurred and what weight to give it.
- An indictment is sufficient if it alleges the essential elements of the offense; a facially valid indictment supports the court’s jurisdiction and the resulting judgment.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld Patterson’s armed-robbery conviction, concluding the jury-deadlock procedure was noncoercive, the Identikit composites were properly admitted (or any error was harmless), the flight evidence and instruction were supported, and the indictment adequately charged the offense.


State v. Patterson, 332 N.C. 409, 420 S.E.2d 98 (N.C. 1992)