State v. Mayo

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Mayo

219 S.E.2d 255, 27 N.C. App. 336, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1840

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 5, 1975

DocketNo. 7518SC517

StatusPublished

This text of 219 S.E.2d 255 (State v. Mayo) 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. Mayo, 219 S.E.2d 255, 27 N.C. App. 336, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1840 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

The trial judge, instructing the jury on the elements of the crime, charged the State with the burden of proving that the defendant knew that the pieces of paper with the numbers on them were lottery tickets. However the trial judge then stated, “I instruct you that under our law unless the defendant introduces evidence of lack of knowledge, this element may be presumed.” The defendant contends that the trial court’s charge failed to place the burden of proof on the State. We agree.

The defendant’s plea of not guilty casts upon him a presumption of innocence and the State has the burden of satisfying the jury from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every material element of the offense. State v. Moore, 268 N.C. 124, 150 S.E. 2d 47 (1966) ; State v. Dallas, 253 N.C. 568, 117 S.E. 2d 415 (1960) ; State v. Cephus, 239 N.C. 521, 80 S.E. 2d 147 (1954). The trial court committed prejudicial error by requiring the defendant to negate the existence of a material element of the crime.

New trial.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

The trial judge, instructing the jury on the elements of the crime, charged the State with the burden of proving that the defendant knew that the pieces of paper with the numbers on them were lottery tickets. However the trial judge then stated, “I instruct you that under our law unless the defendant introduces evidence of lack of knowledge, this element may be presumed.” The defendant contends that the trial court’s charge failed to place the burden of proof on the State. We agree.

The defendant’s plea of not guilty casts upon him a presumption of innocence and the State has the burden of satisfying the jury from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every material element of the offense. State v. Moore, 268 N.C. 124, 150 S.E. 2d 47 (1966) ; State v. Dallas, 253 N.C. 568, 117 S.E. 2d 415 (1960) ; State v. Cephus, 239 N.C. 521, 80 S.E. 2d 147 (1954). The trial court committed prejudicial error by requiring the defendant to negate the existence of a material element of the crime.

New trial.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.E.2d 255, 27 N.C. App. 336, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mayo-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack