State v. Best
| Citation | 161 S.E. 535,202 N.C. 9 |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 633.,633. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | STATE . v. BEST et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cherokee County; Harding, Judge.
Mary Best and others were convicted of receiving stolen goods knowing that they had been stolen, and bhey appeal.
New trial.
Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendants (1) with larceny of shoes, dresses, hats, caps, cigarettes, etc., valued at $100, the property of R. L. Anderson; and (2) with receiving said goods and chattels knowing them to have been feloniously stolen or taken in violation of C. S. § 4250.
The record discloses that the property in question was found in the possession of the defendants on the day after it had been stolen from the store of R. L. Anderson.
After the jury had been out for some time, they returned for further instructions:
Verdict:
Judgment: Imprisonment in the state's prison, Lee Ellen Harbin, 3 years; Hazel McMahan, 21/2 years; and Mary Best, 2 years.
Defendants appeal, assigning errors.
Frank Hill and Moody & Moody, all of Murphy, for appellants.
D. G. Brummiitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. F. Seawell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Conceding that the recent possession of the stolen property was a circumstance tending to show the larceny thereof by the defendants (State v. Hullen, 133 N. C. 656, 45 S. E. 513), or that it raised a presumption of fact (State v. Anderson, 162 N. C. 571, 77 S. E. 238), or a presumption of law (State v. Graves, 72 N. C. 4S2), of such guilt, nevertheless it is the holding with us that the inference or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...held that the recent possession of stolen property is a circumstance tending to show the larceny thereof by the possessor (State v. Best, 202 N.C. 9, 161 S.E. 535), or that it raises a presumption of fact (State v. Anderson, 162 N.C. 571, 77 S.E. 238), or a presumption of law (State v. Grav......
-
State v. Neill
...Yow, 227 N.C. 585, 42 S.E.2d 661; State v. Oxendine, 223 N.C. 659, 27 S.E.2d 814; State v. Lowe, 204 N.C. 572, 169 S.E. 180; State v. Best, 202 N.C. 9, 161 S.E. 535. In the trial below, the jury was the trier of the facts upon a charge presumably free from error, since it was not brought fo......
-
State v. Weinstein
...... evidence. It was urged that the ruling in State v. Holbrook, 223 N.C. 622, 27 S.E.2d 725, and State v. Baker, 213 N.C. 524, 196 S.E. 829, should be applied. here, rather than that set out in State v. Williams,. 219 N.C. 365, 13 S.E.2d 617; State v. Best, 202 N.C. 9, 161 S.E. 535; and State v. Anderson, 162 N.C. 571, 77 S.E. 238. . . While. there is apparently a difference in the decided cases as to. the application of the doctrine of recent possession in. larceny, the distinction lies in the nature of the evidence. upon ......
-
State v. Oxendine
...and no guilty inference is to be drawn from the mere fact of the recent possession of the stolen property by the defendants. State v. Best, 202 N.C. 9, 161 S.E. 535; v. Lowe, 204 N.C. 572, 169 S.E. 180. The result is that the motions to dismiss or for judgments of nonsuit will be sustained.......