State v. Jordan

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Jordan

185 S.E.2d 332, 13 N.C. App. 254, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1223

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 15, 1971

DocketNo. 7110SC740

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 S.E.2d 332 (State v. Jordan) 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. Jordan, 185 S.E.2d 332, 13 N.C. App. 254, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1223 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant’s court-appointed counsel brings forward only one assignment of error. Counsel tacitly concedes that to sustain his assignment of error this Court would have to overrule the long-standing doctrine set forth in State v. Welch, 266 N.C. 291, 145 S.E. 2d 902, as follows:

“ . . . ‘[W]hen one is found in the possession of a forged instrument and is endeavoring to obtain money or advances upon it, this raises a presumption that defendant either forged or consented to the forging such instrument, and nothing else appearing the person would be presumed to be guilty.’ ”

[255]*255For the reasons stated by Chief Justice Ruffin in State v. Morgan, 19 N.C. 348, the presumption is sound. The record in this case reveals no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Brock and Britt concur.

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