State v. Battle
| Decision Date | 19 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | 42. |
| Parties | STATE v. William BATTLE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Edgecombe County; Clayton Moore, Special Judge.
The defendant was charged (1) with breaking and entering a dwelling house of Sam Evans and stealing money from a meter box in the possession of Sam Evans, the property of the city of Rocky Mount; (2) with receiving same, knowing the property to have been stolen. When the breaking and entering took place, the evidence would indicate it was about 12:30 in the daytime, some time in February, 1929. The amount alleged to have been stolen was about $2.75, and was taken from a meter box on the back porch of Sam Evans' house.
The defendant introduced no evidence, but in the testimony of witnesses for the state he denied the charge. There was a verdict of guilty. The defendant, at the close of the state's evidence, moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit (C. S. § 4643), and also prayed that the court instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. Defendant's motion and prayer were refused. The defendant excepted, assigned error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.
T. T. Thorne, of Rocky Mount, for appellant.
D. G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was charged with (1) breaking and entering a dwelling house and stealing from a meter box about $2.75; (2) for receiving same knowing the money to have been stolen.
We think there is merely a suspicion or conjecture in regard to the charges in the bill of indictment against defendant, but no sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury.
The judgment below is reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harvey
......Rep. 478. 'Evidence which merely shows it possible for the fact in. issue to be as alleged, or which raises a mere conjecture. that it was so, is an insufficient foundation for a verdict. and should not be left to the jury '. State v. Vinson, 63 N.C. 335. See, also, State v. Battle, 198 N.C. 379, 151 S.E. 927; State v. Swinson, 196 N.C. 100, 144 S.E. 555; State v. Montague, 195 N.C. 20, 141 S.E. 285; State v. Prince, 182 N.C. 788, 108 S.E. 330; State v. Gragg, 122 N.C. 1082, 30 S.E. 306; State v. Rhodes, 111 N.C. 647, 15 S.E. 1038; State v. Goodson, 107 N.C. 798, 12 ......
-
State v. Cranford
...... in a criminal prosecution. It all may be true, and yet the. appealing defendant may be innocent. State v. Goodson, 107 N.C. 798, 12 S.E. 329; State v. Tillman, 146 N.C. 611, 60 S.E. 902; State v. Montague, 195 N.C. 20, 141 S.E. 285; State v. Battle, 198 N.C. 379, 151 S.E. 927; State v. Shu, 218 N.C. 387, 11 S.E.2d 155; State v. Penry, 220 N.C. 248, 17 S.E.2d 4. In State v. Penry,. supra, it is said: 'The State's case [231 N.C. 213] . fails at the first hurdle', and in the present case we. are inclined to the view that it does so in the ......
-
State v. Johnson
...... . . The. evidence does no more than raise a suspicion, somewhat strong. perhaps, of the defendant's guilt. It would require a. repudiation of Tucker's testimony and a guess to bridge. the hiatus in the state's case. Hence, under the. principle announced in State v. Battle, 198 N.C. 379, 151 S.E. 927; State v. Swinson, 196 N.C. 100,. 144 S.E. 555; State v. Montague, 195 N.C. 20, 141. S.E. 285; State v. Prince, 182 N.C. 788, 108 S.E. 330; State v. Rhodes, 111 N.C. 647, 15 S.E. 1038;. State v. Goodson, 107 N.C. 798, 12 S.E. 329;. State v. Brackville, 106 N.C. ......
-
State v. Carter
...of the following cases: State v. Church, 202 N.C. 692, 163 S.E. 874; State v. Johnson, 199 N.C. 429, 154 S.E. 730; State v. Battle, 198 N.C. 379, 151 S.E. 927; State v. Swinson, 196 N.C. 100, 144 S.E. 555; State v. Montague, 195 N.C. 20, 141 S.E. 285; State v. Prince, 182 N.C. 788, 108 S.E.......