State v. Curry

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Curry

212 S.E.2d 509, 25 N.C. App. 101, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2184

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 5, 1975

DocketNo. 7422SC1000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 S.E.2d 509 (State v. Curry) 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. Curry, 212 S.E.2d 509, 25 N.C. App. 101, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2184 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Defendant argues that it was error to deny his motion for nonsuit. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty of felonious larceny because the evidence does not show that defendant actually entered the house or actually removed the stolen items from the house. This argument seems to miss the main point in the State’s case. The case was tried and submitted to the jury on the theory that defendant aided and abetted in the felonious breaking and the felonious larceny. The evidence is ample to support a verdict of guilty of felonious larceny on this theory.

Defendant argues that he was entitled to a mistrial because of prejudicial error in the reception of evidence. Defendant’s motion to strike the objectionable testimony was allowed, and the jury was specifically instructed to disregard it. This prompt action by the trial judge cured the error if error, in fact, existed.

Our review of the record discloses no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Vaughn and Martin concur.

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

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Defendant argues that it was error to deny his motion for nonsuit. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty of felonious larceny because the evidence does not show that defendant actually entered the house or actually removed the stolen items from the house. This argument seems to miss the main point in the State’s case. The case was tried and submitted to the jury on the theory that defendant aided and abetted in the felonious breaking and the felonious larceny. The evidence is ample to support a verdict of guilty of felonious larceny on this theory.

Defendant argues that he was entitled to a mistrial because of prejudicial error in the reception of evidence. Defendant’s motion to strike the objectionable testimony was allowed, and the jury was specifically instructed to disregard it. This prompt action by the trial judge cured the error if error, in fact, existed.

Our review of the record discloses no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Vaughn and Martin concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 S.E.2d 509, 25 N.C. App. 101, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-curry-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack