State v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 01 May 1946
• Docket Number: 433
• Citation: State v. Baldwin, 226 N.C. 295, 37 S.E.2d 898 (N.C. 1946)
• Parties: STATE v. BALDWIN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

37 S.E.2d 898

226 N.C. 295

STATE v. BALDWIN.

No. 433

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 1, 1946

This was a criminal action wherein the defendant was tried and convicted upon a bill of indictment which contained two counts: The first count charged that the defendant 'unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously was found armed with and having ing in his possession without lawful excuse certain dangerous and offensive weapons, to wit: One 18' Stillson wrench, one brace #4310, one 1/2' drill one 5/16' drill, one 3/16' drill, one 7/32' drill, five detonating caps, two flashlight batteries Ray O Vac, one burgess super service battery, '2 cell, one pair brown gloves, one way pack pickle jar containing two sticks of dynamite, four .32 calibre bullets, one drill chuck key one bottle containing paregoric and other implements of dangerous and offensive nature fitted and designed for use in burglary or other house breakings or for the use in burglary with explosives with intent to so use said implements for the purpose of unlawfully and feloniously breaking and entering a dwelling or other building against the form of the statute in such case made and provided. * * * ' The second count charged that the defendant 'was found and did then and there unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously have in his possession without lawful excuse certain implements of house breaking, to wit: One 18' Stillson wrench, one brace #4310, one 1/2' drill, one 5/16' drill, one 3/16' drill, one 7/32' drill, five detonating caps, two flashlight batteries Ray O Vac, one burgess super service battery, '2 cell, one pair brown gloves, one way pack pickle jar containing two sticks of dynamite, four .32 calibre bullets, one drill chuck key, one bottle containing paregoric and other implements of dangerous and offensive nature fitted and designed for use in burglary or other house breakings or for use in burglary with explosives against the form of the statute * * *'

The Solicitor took a voluntary nonsuit as to the first count in the bill of indictment, and after the close of the evidence, the arguments for the state and defendant and charge of the Court, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the second count of the bill of indictment whereupon judgment of imprisonment was pronounced from which the defendant appealed, assigning errors.

Walter D. Siler, of Pittsboro, and K. R. Hoyle, of Sanford, for appellant.

Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and Hughes J. Rhodes, Ralph M Moody, and J. E. Tucker, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

SCHENCK Justice.

The first assignments of error set out in the appellant's brief relate to the Court's refusal to allow defendant's motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit on the second count duly lodged under G. S. s 15-173, and presented to the Court at various times and ways during the course of the trial. It was first contended by the defendant that the evidence was insufficient to be submitted to the jury. We think but a casual consideration of the evidence clearly demonstrates its sufficiency to overthrow the motion. It tends to show that the defendant owned the car to which he had in his possession a key, and upon search of the car most of the articles, if not all, mentioned in the bill of indictment were found therein, that while these articles may have had legitimate uses, they were also such articles as were commonly used in blowing safes, burglary and in house breaking; and if any further argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence was needed it is furnished in State v Vick, 213 N.C. 235, 195 S.E. 779, 780, where Mr. Justice Barnhill writes: 'There are many facts of which the court may take judicial notice, and they should take notice of whatever is, or ought to be, generally known within the limits of their jurisdiction, for justice does not require that courts profess to be more ignorant than the rest of mankind. 15 R.C.L., 1057. It is not unusual for the court to take judicial notice that certain weapons not specifically described in the statute are deadly weapons. They likewise take notice of other like generally known facts. While each of the articles found in the possession of the defendant has its legitimate use, it cannot be said that taken in combination these articles are tools of any legitimate trade or calling. There is no legitimate purpose for...