State v. Lovelace

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Lovelace

158 S.E.2d 624, 272 N.C. 496, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 684

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 12, 1968

Docket272-Q

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 158 S.E.2d 624 (State v. Lovelace) 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. Lovelace, 158 S.E.2d 624, 272 N.C. 496, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 684 (N.C. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Higgins, J.

Both Dixon and Lovelace were charged with the felonious possession of implements of housebreaking. Both were at the entrance to the restaurant at 1:45 on Sunday morning. They were within three feet of the front entrance door which, when examined, showed evidence of tool marks around the lock. As the two men became alerted to the presence of the officers, Dixon attempted to prevent the discovery of the large screw driver and hammer, both of which he held, by throwing them away.

The tools, though capable of legitimate use, nevertheless under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, permitted a legitimate inference they were intended for the purpose of breaking into the restaurant. Obviously, the attempt to hide them tends to show their possession was without lawful excuse. Although the tools were seen in the hands of Dixon only, who did not appeal, nevertheless, if the men were acting together in the attempt to use them to force entry into the restaurant, both in law would be equally guilty of the unlawful possession. This Court said, in State v. Maynard, 247 N.C. 462, 101 S.E. 2d 340:

. . ‘Everyone who enters into a common purpose or design is equally deemed in law a party to every act which had before been done by the others, and a party to every act which may af-terwards be done by any one of the others, in furtherance of such common design.’ S. v. Jackson, 82 N.C. 565; S. v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 20 S.E. 2d 360; S. v. Summerlin — ‘Hole-in-the-Wall’ case, — 232 N.C. 333, 60 S.E. 2d 322; S. v. Anderson, 208 N.C. 771, loc. cit. 786, 182 S.E. 643; S. v. Herndon, 211 N.C. 123, 189 S.E. 173.”

The evidence was sufficient to warrant the finding. that Dixon 'and' Lovelace were acting together at the time of discovery, shortly after midnight on Sunday morning. Both were together at the dimly lighted door of a closed building. Both had been drinking. 'After arrest, they were placed in the rear seat of, the police car ánd on the way to headquarters, one of the men volunteered the. statement, *499 “Our car was out of gas. We were going to get some gas.” The evidence warranted the finding the men were acting together and although the tools were only seen in the hands of Dixon, yet the evidence warranted the finding that both were there attempting to use them to force entry into the restaurant.

We have reviewed the objections to the charge. When considered contextually, we find it free from valid objection.

No error.

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

Higgins, J.

Both Dixon and Lovelace were charged with the felonious possession of implements of housebreaking. Both were at the entrance to the restaurant at 1:45 on Sunday morning. They were within three feet of the front entrance door which, when examined, showed evidence of tool marks around the lock. As the two men became alerted to the presence of the officers, Dixon attempted to prevent the discovery of the large screw driver and hammer, both of which he held, by throwing them away.

The tools, though capable of legitimate use, nevertheless under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, permitted a legitimate inference they were intended for the purpose of breaking into the restaurant. Obviously, the attempt to hide them tends to show their possession was without lawful excuse. Although the tools were seen in the hands of Dixon only, who did not appeal, nevertheless, if the men were acting together in the attempt to use them to force entry into the restaurant, both in law would be equally guilty of the unlawful possession. This Court said, in State v. Maynard, 247 N.C. 462, 101 S.E. 2d 340:

. . ‘Everyone who enters into a common purpose or design is equally deemed in law a party to every act which had before been done by the others, and a party to every act which may af-terwards be done by any one of the others, in furtherance of such common design.’ S. v. Jackson, 82 N.C. 565; S. v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 20 S.E. 2d 360; S. v. Summerlin — ‘Hole-in-the-Wall’ case, — 232 N.C. 333, 60 S.E. 2d 322; S. v. Anderson, 208 N.C. 771, loc. cit. 786, 182 S.E. 643; S. v. Herndon, 211 N.C. 123, 189 S.E. 173.”

The evidence was sufficient to warrant the finding. that Dixon 'and' Lovelace were acting together at the time of discovery, shortly after midnight on Sunday morning. Both were together at the dimly lighted door of a closed building. Both had been drinking. 'After arrest, they were placed in the rear seat of, the police car ánd on the way to headquarters, one of the men volunteered the. statement, *499 “Our car was out of gas. We were going to get some gas.” The evidence warranted the finding the men were acting together and although the tools were only seen in the hands of Dixon, yet the evidence warranted the finding that both were there attempting to use them to force entry into the restaurant.

We have reviewed the objections to the charge. When considered contextually, we find it free from valid objection.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E.2d 624, 272 N.C. 496, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lovelace-nc-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack