State v. . Anthony

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Anthony

173 S.E. 47, 206 N.C. 120, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 127

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 28, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 S.E. 47 (State v. . Anthony) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Anthony, 173 S.E. 47, 206 N.C. 120, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 127 (N.C. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

CoNNOR, J.

At the close of the evidence for the State, the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. 0. S., 4643. The motion was allowed as to the first count in the indictment, and denied as to the second and third counts. The defendant excepted to the refusal of his motion as to the second and third counts in the indictment, and offered evidence in support of his plea of not guilty. At the close of all the evidence the defendant again moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was denied, and defendant excepted. On his appeal to this Court, defendant contends that there was no evidence at the trial tending to show that he is guilty either of larceny or of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen. After a careful examination of the evidence appearing in the case on appeal, we are of the opinion that defendant’s contention must be sustained. For that reason the judgment is reversed.

There was no evidence tending to show that the goods which were stolen by Robert Lee Hill were at any time thereafter in the possession, actual or constructive of the defendant, or that defendant, when he was in the company of Robert Lee Hill on Sunday night, knew that the goods which were then in the possession of Robert Lee Hill had been stolen by him on Saturday night, when he broke and entered into the warehouse at Roper. But conceding that the jury could infer from all the evidence that the goods were in the constructive possession of the defendant, this fact alone could not justify the inference that defendant knew that the goods had been stolen by Robert Lee Hill. S. v. Lowe, 204 N. C., 512, 169 S. E., 180.

There was error in the refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence. The judgment is

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CoNNOR, J.

At the close of the evidence for the State, the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. 0. S., 4643. The motion was allowed as to the first count in the indictment, and denied as to the second and third counts. The defendant excepted to the refusal of his motion as to the second and third counts in the indictment, and offered evidence in support of his plea of not guilty. At the close of all the evidence the defendant again moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was denied, and defendant excepted. On his appeal to this Court, defendant contends that there was no evidence at the trial tending to show that he is guilty either of larceny or of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen. After a careful examination of the evidence appearing in the case on appeal, we are of the opinion that defendant’s contention must be sustained. For that reason the judgment is reversed.

There was no evidence tending to show that the goods which were stolen by Robert Lee Hill were at any time thereafter in the possession, actual or constructive of the defendant, or that defendant, when he was in the company of Robert Lee Hill on Sunday night, knew that the goods which were then in the possession of Robert Lee Hill had been stolen by him on Saturday night, when he broke and entered into the warehouse at Roper. But conceding that the jury could infer from all the evidence that the goods were in the constructive possession of the defendant, this fact alone could not justify the inference that defendant knew that the goods had been stolen by Robert Lee Hill. S. v. Lowe, 204 N. C., 512, 169 S. E., 180.

There was error in the refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence. The judgment is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.E. 47, 206 N.C. 120, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anthony-nc-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack