State v. . Church

163 S.E. 874, 202 N.C. 692, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 190
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 4, 1932·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

We agree with the learned counsel for the defendant that error was committed in connection with the testimony relative to the action of the bloodhounds (S. v. McLeod, 196 N. C., 542, 146 S. E., 409) ; and further that, upon the whole case, the evidence was not sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the charge of house-burning.

*694 To show that the store was destroyed by fire, without establishing its felonious origin, or the identity of the defendant, or circumstances from which these facts might reasonably be inferred, falls short of proving the corpus delicti of the crime as charged in the bill of indictment. 7 R. C. L., 774. Hence, the motion for judgment of nonsuit should have been allowed. It will be sustained here as provided by C. S., 4643.

Reversed.

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

State v. . Church, 163 S.E. 874, 202 N.C. 692, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 190 (N.C. 1932).

163 S.E. 874 (State v. . Church) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Courtney
103 S.E.2d 861 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Commonwealth v. Nasuti
123 A.2d 435 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1956)
State v. Cuthrell
63 S.E.2d 549 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
State v. . Edwards
31 S.E.2d 762 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
State v. . Wilson
171 S.E. 338 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
State v. . Carter
168 S.E. 204 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)