State v. Bennett, 651
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Citation | 237 N.C. 749,76 S.E.2d 42 |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 651,651 |
| Parties | STATE, v. BENNETT. |
Page 42
v.
BENNETT.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and Claude L. Love, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Malcolm McQueen and James MacRae, Fayetteville, for defendant, appellant.
ERVIN, Justice.
The defendant makes these asertions by his assignments of error:
1. That the trial judge erred in denying the motion of the defendant for a compulsory nonsuit.
2. That the trial judge erred in refusing to grant the defendant a continuance.
3. That the trial judge erred in admitting certain testimony.
4. That the trial judge erred in failing to give the petit jury an instruction on circumstantial evidence.
When the testimony at the trial is interpreted in the light most favorable to the State, it makes out this case:
The Thomasson Plywood Corporation manufactured doors at its plant in the City of Fayetteville. Rogers was foreman of its night shift. On August 1, 1951, the defendant and Rogers entered into an arrangement whereby Rogers agreed to steal doors from the Thomasson Plywood Corporation and place them upon the premises of the defendant on the Lumberton Road, and whereby the defendant agreed to pay Rogers $3 for each stolen door left by him at such place. Between August 1, 1951, and January 29, 1952, Rogers stole some 700 doors worth from '$7.00 to $11.00' apiece from the Thomasson Plywood Corporation, and caused Reaves, Smiley and Smith, who were his subordinates, to remove them by motor truck under the cover of darkness from the plant of theThomasson Plywood Corporation in the City of Fayetteville to the premises of the defendant on the Lumberton Road. The defendant accepted these stolen doors, and paid Rogers the stipulated prices for them in cash. On January 29, 1952, peace officers of Cumberland County found 182 of the stolen doors on the defendant's premises.
[237 N.C. 752] Since the State's evidence suffices to show an agreement between the defendant and Rogers to take by larceny doors belonging to the Thomasson Plywood Corporation, it is ample to withstand an involuntary nonsuit on the first count of the indictment. State v. Dean, 35 N.C. 63; People v. Bond, 291 Ill. 74, 125 N.E. 740; Davis v. State, 197 Ind. 448, 151 N.E. 329.
Under G.S. § 14-72 as amended, the larceny of property of the value of more than one hundred dollars is a felony. State v. Weinstein, 224 N.C. 645, 31 S.E.2d 920, 156 A.L.R. 625. The State's testimony makes it crystal clear that the stolen doors were worth several thousands of dollars, and that the defendant was not actually or constructively present at the time and place of their theft. Despite these considerations, the State's evidence is sufficient to support the conviction of the defendant as a principal in the larceny charged in the second count of the indictment. This is true because of the peculiar rule which prevails in North Carolina is respect to persons concerned in the commission of a felonious larceny.
The distinction between principals and accessories is made only in felonies. All persons who participate in treason or in misdemeanors, whether present or absent, are indictable and punishable as principals. 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 81. The rule governing treason and misdemeanors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adcock, 121A83
...the jury. Id. at 678, 103 S.E. at 904. (emphasis added). Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit larceny in State v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 76 S.E.2d 42 (1953). One of his assignments was the failure of the trial judge to charge on circumstantial evidence. Justice Ervin disposed of ......
-
State v. Tilley, 722
...Tilley Page 476 was amply sufficient to carry the [239 N.C. 249] case to the jury on both counts of the indictment. State v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 76 S.E.2d This is true notwithstanding Tilley claimed to be an accomplice of the defendant, and notwithstanding Bowman, another supposed accomp......
-
State v. Hageman, 206A82
...is sufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused. State v. Covington, 290 N.C. 313, 226 S.E.2d 629 (1976); State v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 76 S.E.2d 42 (1953); State v. Hicks, 229 N.C. 345, 49 S.E.2d 639 In the cases cited above, the circumstantial evidence related to the corpus delic......
-
North Carolina State Highway v. Black, 681
...the jury in the decision of the case. In consequence, its admission must be adjudged harmless to the petitioner. State v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 76 S.E.2d 42; State v. Glover, 208 N.C. 68, 179 S.E. 6. Exceptions 25 and 26 are addressed to the action of the trial judge in sustaining objectio......
-
State v. Adcock, 121A83
...the jury. Id. at 678, 103 S.E. at 904. (emphasis added). Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit larceny in State v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 76 S.E.2d 42 (1953). One of his assignments was the failure of the trial judge to charge on circumstantial evidence. Justice Ervin disposed of ......
-
State v. Tilley, 722
...Tilley Page 476 was amply sufficient to carry the [239 N.C. 249] case to the jury on both counts of the indictment. State v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 76 S.E.2d This is true notwithstanding Tilley claimed to be an accomplice of the defendant, and notwithstanding Bowman, another supposed accomp......
-
State v. Hageman, 206A82
...is sufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused. State v. Covington, 290 N.C. 313, 226 S.E.2d 629 (1976); State v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 76 S.E.2d 42 (1953); State v. Hicks, 229 N.C. 345, 49 S.E.2d 639 In the cases cited above, the circumstantial evidence related to the corpus delic......
-
North Carolina State Highway v. Black, 681
...the jury in the decision of the case. In consequence, its admission must be adjudged harmless to the petitioner. State v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 76 S.E.2d 42; State v. Glover, 208 N.C. 68, 179 S.E. 6. Exceptions 25 and 26 are addressed to the action of the trial judge in sustaining objectio......