State v. Candler

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Candler

212 S.E.2d 901, 25 N.C. App. 318, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2251

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 2, 1975

DocketNo. 744SC1092

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 S.E.2d 901 (State v. Candler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Candler, 212 S.E.2d 901, 25 N.C. App. 318, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2251 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Defendants assign as errors, first, the denial of their motions for directed verdicts of not guilty, and, second, the failure of the court “to properly instruct the jury as to the value of circumstantial evidence.” We find no error in either assignment.

The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was amply sufficient to require submission of the cases to the jury, and defendants’ motions, which we treat as motions for nonsuit, State v. Holton, 284 N.C. 391, 200 S.E. 2d 612 (1973), were properly denied.

The court correctly instructed the jury as-to the burden and quantum of proof required for conviction, and absent a request for special instructions the court was not required to [319]*319instruct the jury as to how it should view circumstantial evidence. State v. Warren, 228 N.C. 22, 44 S.E. 2d 207 (1947) ; State v. Murray, 21 N.C. App. 573, 205 S.E. 2d 587 (1974) ; 3 Strong; N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 112, p. 8.

We have carefully reviewed the entire record and find

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Clark concur.

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