State v. Gunter

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Gunter

202 S.E.2d 353, 20 N.C. App. 627, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2507

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 6, 1974

DocketNo. 7324SC801

StatusPublished

This text of 202 S.E.2d 353 (State v. Gunter) 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. Gunter, 202 S.E.2d 353, 20 N.C. App. 627, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2507 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

CARSON, Judge.

At the conclusion of the State’s evidence and again at the end of all the evidence, each defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The denial of these motions is the only assignment of error presented to us on this appeal. It is well established that on a motion for judgment of nonsuit, the evidence is to be taken in the light most favorable to the State together with any logical inferences that can be drawn therefrom. State v. McNeil, 280 N.C. 159, 185 S.E. 2d 156 (1971); State v. Bronson, 10 N.C. App. 638, 179 S.E. 2d 823 (1971). Applying that test to the facts in question, there was certainly enough evidence to be submitted to the jury on the question of the breaking and larceny. The defendants and Boyd Buckner were dropped off in front of the victims’ home at the time the crime took place. The circumstances were highly suspicious. They were picked up by their accomplice a short time afterward, and they placed in the trunk of the car what appeared to be guns. Buckner’s wrist watch was found inside the Norton home. There was an abundance of evidence in this case to be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge, quite properly denied the motion for non-suit.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur.

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

CARSON, Judge.

At the conclusion of the State’s evidence and again at the end of all the evidence, each defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The denial of these motions is the only assignment of error presented to us on this appeal. It is well established that on a motion for judgment of nonsuit, the evidence is to be taken in the light most favorable to the State together with any logical inferences that can be drawn therefrom. State v. McNeil, 280 N.C. 159, 185 S.E. 2d 156 (1971); State v. Bronson, 10 N.C. App. 638, 179 S.E. 2d 823 (1971). Applying that test to the facts in question, there was certainly enough evidence to be submitted to the jury on the question of the breaking and larceny. The defendants and Boyd Buckner were dropped off in front of the victims’ home at the time the crime took place. The circumstances were highly suspicious. They were picked up by their accomplice a short time afterward, and they placed in the trunk of the car what appeared to be guns. Buckner’s wrist watch was found inside the Norton home. There was an abundance of evidence in this case to be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge, quite properly denied the motion for non-suit.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 S.E.2d 353, 20 N.C. App. 627, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gunter-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack