State v. . Brown

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Brown

150 S.E. 635, 198 N.C. 41, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 401

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 4, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 150 S.E. 635 (State v. . Brown) 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. . Brown, 150 S.E. 635, 198 N.C. 41, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 401 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

There is evidence on behalf of the State tending to show that on 8 September, 1928, the tires and guns in question were checked into car No. 115311 for shipment over the Southern Railway to Mor-ganton and Swannanoa. The car was sealed and remained sealed until it reached Connelly Springs, where the seal was broken, and the articles found missing. Soon thereafter, the defendants were discovered in possession of the guns and tires in question, with the numbers on the tires obliterated. They offered to sell the tires for less than half their value, and wanted to pawn or sell the guns.

It is the contention of the defendant that he cannot be convicted on the third count in the bill of indictment in the face of an acquittal on the first two counts; that the evidence of recent possession applies alike to all counts; and that as he was not convicted on the first two, he must necessarily be acquitted on the third.

The defendant’s logic is better than his law. S. v. Sisk, 185 N. C., 696, 116 S. E., 721. Notwithstanding his acquittal on the first two counts, on which the jury may have pardoned him, there was- evidence tending to support the third, and we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the verdict is contradictory. S. v. Record, 151 N. C., 695, 65 S. E., 1010.

We find no reversible error on the record, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

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

Stacy, C. J.

There is evidence on behalf of the State tending to show that on 8 September, 1928, the tires and guns in question were checked into car No. 115311 for shipment over the Southern Railway to Mor-ganton and Swannanoa. The car was sealed and remained sealed until it reached Connelly Springs, where the seal was broken, and the articles found missing. Soon thereafter, the defendants were discovered in possession of the guns and tires in question, with the numbers on the tires obliterated. They offered to sell the tires for less than half their value, and wanted to pawn or sell the guns.

It is the contention of the defendant that he cannot be convicted on the third count in the bill of indictment in the face of an acquittal on the first two counts; that the evidence of recent possession applies alike to all counts; and that as he was not convicted on the first two, he must necessarily be acquitted on the third.

The defendant’s logic is better than his law. S. v. Sisk, 185 N. C., 696, 116 S. E., 721. Notwithstanding his acquittal on the first two counts, on which the jury may have pardoned him, there was- evidence tending to support the third, and we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the verdict is contradictory. S. v. Record, 151 N. C., 695, 65 S. E., 1010.

We find no reversible error on the record, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E. 635, 198 N.C. 41, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-nc-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack