State v. Batts

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Batts

153 S.E.2d 379, 269 N.C. 694, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1136

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 22, 1967

Docket169

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 153 S.E.2d 379 (State v. Batts) 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. Batts, 153 S.E.2d 379, 269 N.C. 694, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1136 (N.C. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER Cueiam.

Considering the State’s evidence in its strongest light, it merely shows the morning following the loss of the property that shoe tracks which were made by the defendant’s shoes, or ones identical to them, were found where the stolen property was discovered. These tracks started in a cornfield adjoining the prosecuting witness’s yard, but could not be traced (if they were present) through the grass in her yard to her house.

This just is not enough evidence to convict the defendant of the charge. In S. v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E. 2d 431, the Court approved the following statement from S. v. Simmons, 240 N.C. 780, 83 S.E. 2d 904: “ ‘If there be any evidence tending to prove the fact in issue or which reasonably conduces to its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury.’ The above is another way of saying there must be substantial evidence of all material elements of the offense to withstand the motion to dismiss. It is immaterial whether the substantial evidence is circumstantial or direct, or both. * * * Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required before the jury can convict. What is substantial evidence is a question of law for the court. What that evidence proves or fails to prove is a question of fact for the jury.”

The evidence here can only “raise a suspicion or conjecture” of the defendant’s guilt. It is not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Reversed.

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

PER Cueiam.

Considering the State’s evidence in its strongest light, it merely shows the morning following the loss of the property that shoe tracks which were made by the defendant’s shoes, or ones identical to them, were found where the stolen property was discovered. These tracks started in a cornfield adjoining the prosecuting witness’s yard, but could not be traced (if they were present) through the grass in her yard to her house.

This just is not enough evidence to convict the defendant of the charge. In S. v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E. 2d 431, the Court approved the following statement from S. v. Simmons, 240 N.C. 780, 83 S.E. 2d 904: “ ‘If there be any evidence tending to prove the fact in issue or which reasonably conduces to its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury.’ The above is another way of saying there must be substantial evidence of all material elements of the offense to withstand the motion to dismiss. It is immaterial whether the substantial evidence is circumstantial or direct, or both. * * * Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required before the jury can convict. What is substantial evidence is a question of law for the court. What that evidence proves or fails to prove is a question of fact for the jury.”

The evidence here can only “raise a suspicion or conjecture” of the defendant’s guilt. It is not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E.2d 379, 269 N.C. 694, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-batts-nc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack