State v. Rowell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Rowell

328 S.E.2d 606, 74 N.C. App. 595, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3526

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 7, 1985

DocketNo. 8416SC912

StatusPublished

This text of 328 S.E.2d 606 (State v. Rowell) 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. Rowell, 328 S.E.2d 606, 74 N.C. App. 595, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3526 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Defendant’s appeal is based on the solitary contention that the evidence was insufficient to justify his conviction, in that it showed no “taking” of the dog by him as the law requires. This contention is without merit and we overrule it. The State was obliged to prove that defendant took and carried away the dog without the owner’s consent, and with the intent to deprive the owner of his property permanently. State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225, 287 S.E. 2d 810 (1982). These elements were clearly and substantially covered by evidence which tended to show that the dog was taken from its lot without the owner’s consent, defendant had the dog almost immediately thereafter, falsely claiming that the owner had given it to him, and then sold the dog to another.

No error.

Judges Arnold and Cozort concur.

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

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Defendant’s appeal is based on the solitary contention that the evidence was insufficient to justify his conviction, in that it showed no “taking” of the dog by him as the law requires. This contention is without merit and we overrule it. The State was obliged to prove that defendant took and carried away the dog without the owner’s consent, and with the intent to deprive the owner of his property permanently. State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225, 287 S.E. 2d 810 (1982). These elements were clearly and substantially covered by evidence which tended to show that the dog was taken from its lot without the owner’s consent, defendant had the dog almost immediately thereafter, falsely claiming that the owner had given it to him, and then sold the dog to another.

No error.

Judges Arnold and Cozort concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 S.E.2d 606, 74 N.C. App. 595, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rowell-ncctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack