State v. Barbee
| Decision Date | 22 May 1929 |
| Docket Number | (No. 485.) |
| Citation | 148 S.E. 249 |
| Parties | STATE. v. BARBEE et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Randolph County; H. Hoyle Sink, Special Judge.
Edgar B. Barbee and others were convicted of having in their possession a car knowing it to be stolen, and first-named defendant alone appeals. Venire de novo.
Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant E. B. Barbee and others (1) with the larceny of a Chevrolet roadster, valued at $564, the property of Johnson Chevrolet Company, and (2) with receiving said Chevrolet roadster, valued at $565, the property of Johnson Chevrolet Company, knowing It to have been feloniously stolen or taken in violation of C. S. § 4250.
Verdict: (As shown by return to writ of certiorari, but not appearing in original record.)
Judgment: Imprisonment in the state's prison as to each of the defendants convicted for not less than 5 nor more than 10 years at hard labor.
The defendant E. B. Barbee alone appeals, assigning errors.
George A. Younce, of Greensboro, and Walter E. Brock, of High Point, for appellant.
D. G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendants, other than Garvin, admitted that the car in question was found by the officers in their possession, but they denied having received it, knowing at the time that It had been feloniously stolen or taken. C. S. § 4250. They offered evidence tending to show that a man by the name of Brooks or Yow came along driving the Chevrolet roadster, picked up the defendants, carried them in the direction of Sanford and on towards Fayetteville, and somewhere near the latter place the said driver left the automobile and went off; whereupon the defendants drove the car to the home of the defendant Garvin, where it was found.
The state contended that Brooks or Yow was but an imaginary person or a mere man of straw, and that the defendants alone were responsible for the larceny of the automobile.
Viewed in the light of the evidence and the charge of the court, the verdict would seem to be defective or insufficient to support a judgment, as it is not responsive to the indictment. State v. Shew, 194 N. C. 690, 140 S. E. 621; State v. Whitaker, 89 N. C. 472. See, also, State v. Gregory, 153 N. C. 646, 69 S. E. 674, and State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Medlin
...9; State v. Allen, 224 N.C. 530, 31 S.E.2d 530; State v. Cannon, 218 N.C. 466, 11 S.E.2d 301; State v. Lassiter, supra; State v. Barbee, 197 N.C. 248, 148 S.E. 249; State v. Shew, 194 N.C. 690, 140 S.E. 621; State v. Parker, 152 N.C. 790, 67 S.E. 35; State v. Whitaker, 89 N.C. In the case l......
-
State v. Spaulding, 1577.
...169 S.E. 180. Knowledge that the goods were stolen at the time of receiving them is an essential element of the offense. State v. Barbee, 197 N.C. 248, 148 S.E. 249; State v. Dail, 191 N.C. 231, 131 S.E. 573; State v. Caveness, 78 N.C. 484. The sufficiency of the warrant, as amended, is not......
-
State v. Brown, 506
...support a judgment. State v. Lassiter, 208 N.C. 251, 179 S.E. 891. See, also, State v. Shew, 194 N.C. 690, 140 S.E. 621; State v. Barbee, 197 N.C. 248, 148 S.E. 249. In the Lassiter case, supra, the defendant was charged in the second count 'with having and possessing a quantity of intoxica......