State v. Bost, 7610SC968
| Docket Nº | No. 7610SC968 |
| Citation | 236 S.E.2d 296, 33 N.C.App. 673 |
| Case Date | July 20, 1977 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
Page 296
v.
Cedrick BOST.
Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen. Robert R. Reilly, Raleigh, for the State.
Brenton D. Adams, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.
PARKER, Judge.
Defendant assigns error to the denial of his motion for nonsuit. We find the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, sufficient to take the charges against defendant to the jury. There was evidence that the crimes were committed by a black male wearing a "light looking sleeveless undershirt type shirt." Defendant, a black male wearing a similar type shirt, was observed within a few minutes [33 N.C.App. 676] after the crimes were committed at a
Page 298
location only two blocks away from the scene of the crimes. He was perspiring, short of breath, and had been running. That he was running toward rather than away from the scene of the crimes presented a factor for the jury to evaluate. The State's evidence in this connection at least unequivocally established his presence near the scene of the crimes at a time shortly after they were committed. There was evidence that an automobile arrived and parked near the scene of the crimes only a few minutes before they were committed and that the person who committed the crimes placed the stolen T.V. set in this automobile. Defendant's fingerprint was found on this automobile. Although all automobiles are meant to be driven on public streets and are frequently parked in public places, this particular automobile had been stolen from its owner, who lived outside of Raleigh, and nothing in the evidence suggests any legitimate reason why defendant should ever have been sufficiently near the automobile to place his fingerprint upon it. In our opinion the evidence was sufficient to support a legitimate inference which the jury might draw that defendant was the person who was seen placing the stolen T.V. set in the automobile and that he was the person who committed the crimes with which he was charged. Defendant's motion for nonsuit was properly denied.Defendant assigns error to the admission in evidence over his objections of the testimony by the fingerprint expert identifying as defendant's the latent fingerprint found on the door of the automobile in which the stolen television set was placed. He contends this testimony should not have been admitted because the evidence failed to show that the fingerprint could have been placed on the automobile only at the time the crime was committed. Evidence that fingerprints found at the scene of a crime are those of the accused is relevant to show that at some time he had been present at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Futrell, 9210SC286
...by the jury, "not a question of law to be determined by the court prior to admission of the fingerprint evidence." State v. Bost, 33 N.C.App. 673, 677, 236 S.E.2d 296, 298, disc. review denied, 293 N.C. 254, 237 S.E.2d 537 (1977). As our Supreme Court stated in State v. The only limitation ......
-
State v. Ellis, 779SC62
...proved fraudulent misapplication. The trial court, as in Foust, correctly charged the jury on fraudulent misapplication. Thus the crime [33 N.C.App. 673] of embezzlement was properly charged in the indictment, proved by the State, and explained to the jury by Page 304 the trial court. As to......
-
State v. Burgess, 8117SC730
...S.E.2d 143, 145 (1973). Usually, "apt time" to object is when the question calling for inadmissible evidence is asked. State v. Bost, 33 N.C.App. 673, 236 S.E.2d 296, cert. denied, 293 N.C. 254, 237 S.E.2d 537 (1977). Where the admissibility of evidence becomes apparent only upon the answer......
-
State v. Hall, COA19-110
...court’s decision not to strike that testimony after the fact was a reasoned decision and not an abuse of discretion. State v. Bost , 33 N.C. App. 673, 678, 236 S.E.2d 296, 299 (1977).ConclusionWe find no error in the trial court’s judgment.NO ERROR.Report per Rule 30(e).Judges DILLON and YOUNG...