State v. Lakey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Lakey

154 S.E.2d 900, 270 N.C. 786, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1427

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 20, 1967

Docket830

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 154 S.E.2d 900 (State v. Lakey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Lakey, 154 S.E.2d 900, 270 N.C. 786, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1427 (N.C. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of nonsuit. The State relies on circumstantial evidence to prove there was a felonious breaking and enter *788 ing by defendant. There was sufficient evidence to show that the building of Central Carolina Farmers Exchange was feloniously broken and entered on the morning of 18 August 1966, and that the safe located therein was damaged. There was also ample evidence to identify defendant and one Douglas Bradj’’ as the persons seen running across the premises from the direction of the building shortly after a witness had heard banging and knocking noises coming from the direction of the building and a few minutes after a police car drove on the premises. Further, there was evidence that Brady’s fingerprints were found on defendant’s parked automobile.

These facts present substantial evidence of all the material elements of felonious breaking and entering. “ ‘If there be any evidence tending to prove the fact in issue or which reasonably conduces to its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it. the case, should be submitted to the jury.’The above is another way of saying there must be substantial evidence of all material elements of the offense to withstand the motion to dismiss.” State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E. 2d 431; State v. Thompson, 256 N.C. 593, 124 S.E. 2d 728.

Defendant further contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence that Douglas Brady was seen running from the building that had been broken and entered, and that his fingerprints were found on defendant’s parked automobile. These were circumstances calculated to throw light upon the supposed crime, and their introduction into evidence was permissible. State v. Payne, 213 N.C. 719, 197 S.E. 573.

We have carefully examined all other exceptions and find no reversible error.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of nonsuit. The State relies on circumstantial evidence to prove there was a felonious breaking and enter *788 ing by defendant. There was sufficient evidence to show that the building of Central Carolina Farmers Exchange was feloniously broken and entered on the morning of 18 August 1966, and that the safe located therein was damaged. There was also ample evidence to identify defendant and one Douglas Bradj’’ as the persons seen running across the premises from the direction of the building shortly after a witness had heard banging and knocking noises coming from the direction of the building and a few minutes after a police car drove on the premises. Further, there was evidence that Brady’s fingerprints were found on defendant’s parked automobile.

These facts present substantial evidence of all the material elements of felonious breaking and entering. “ ‘If there be any evidence tending to prove the fact in issue or which reasonably conduces to its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it. the case, should be submitted to the jury.’The above is another way of saying there must be substantial evidence of all material elements of the offense to withstand the motion to dismiss.” State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E. 2d 431; State v. Thompson, 256 N.C. 593, 124 S.E. 2d 728.

Defendant further contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence that Douglas Brady was seen running from the building that had been broken and entered, and that his fingerprints were found on defendant’s parked automobile. These were circumstances calculated to throw light upon the supposed crime, and their introduction into evidence was permissible. State v. Payne, 213 N.C. 719, 197 S.E. 573.

We have carefully examined all other exceptions and find no reversible error.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 S.E.2d 900, 270 N.C. 786, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lakey-nc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack