State v. Bruce
| Decision Date | 28 April 1890 |
| Citation | 106 N.C. 792,11 S.E. 475 |
| Parties | State. v. Bruce. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Larceny—Evidence.
Under indictment for larceny, the evidence showed that defendant, his co-defendant, and the prosecuting witness were together; that the latter fell asleep drunk, and while in this condition his purse, containing a $20 bill and $18.50 besides, was stolen. After the larceny defendant had a purse with the clasps freshly broken, which resembled the one stolen, but was not positively identified. The co-defendant had a $20 bill in his possession when arrested. It appeared that defendant had no money for several days prior to the larceny, and that he displayed money a few hours after it occurred. Held, that an instruction to acquit was properly overruled.
Appeal from superior court, Buncombe county; Moore, Judge.
Indictment for larceny.
The Attorney General, for the State.
H. A. Gudger and V. S. Lusk, for defendant.
The counsel for defendant asked the court to charge the jury that there was no evidence against him, and to return a verdict of not guilty. The refusal of the court to so charge presents the only question for review. " If the evidence merely raised a suspicion or conjecture of guilt, it was not legal evidence, and the court should have directed a verdict of not guilty. But if the evidence, considered as a whole, could, in any just and reasonable view of it, warrant a verdict, it should have been left to the jury as the proper triers of the fact. " State v. Eller, 104 N. C. 853, 10 S. E. Rep. 313. The same principle has been settled by many cases. This court cannot pass upon the question whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. That rested with the court below, and its decision is final. Whether the evidence is sufficient to convict is for the jury, but whether there is any evidence sufficient to go to the jury is a question of law. While it cannot be raised for the first time in this court, when raised, as here, in the court below, by a request to instruct the jury, an appeal lies from its refusal, and all the evidence against the defendant is presumed to be sent up. The principles are as above stated. The difficulty lies in the application of them to the evidence in any given case.
In the present case it was in evidence for the state that defendant and one John Dryman (who was also convicted on this indictment, but who has not appealed) were in and about the warehouse together with several others, from which the prosecutor was carried to the "camp-house" while intoxicated, and while in that condition he fell asleep, and when he woke up his pocket-book was gone, and with it a $20 bill, a $10 bill, a $5 bill, and $3.50 in silver, which were in it; that both defendants were seen with prosecutor while drunk in the camp-house. The defendants were indicted for larceny of the pocket-book and money, and receiving the same knowing them to have been stolen. The pocket-book taken from Bruce's person, the prosecutor testified, resembled the one he had lost, except that the catches or clasps were broken off. He would not swear positively that it was his pocket-book. It was also in evidence that the prosecutor lost his pocket-book about 5 p. m., and the same evening about from 8 to 9 p. m. defendant deposited $8.50 with the clerk at a bar-room for safe keeping; that, two or three days before, defendant had been fined $5 in the mayor's court for violation of a city ordinance, and said clerk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Shoup
... ... he came to Norfolk, a matter of circumstantial importance in ... the case. See State v. Payne, supra; State v ... Lawrence, 196 N.C. 562, 146 S.E. 395; State v ... Wellman, 166 N.C. 354, 81 S.E. 745; State v ... White, 162 N.C. 615, 77 S.E. 999; State v ... Bruce, 106 N.C. 792, 11 S.E. 475 ... In ... exception 8 the appellant complains that the trial judge ... misstated the testimony of a police officer in summing up the ... evidence. The judge told the jury, in substance, that the ... defendant said he took the money "because he ... ...
-
State v. Kiger
...Taylor v. Plummer, 105 N. C. 56, 11 S. E. 266. Still less could such an exception be made for the first time in this court State v. Bruce, 106 N. C. 792, 11 S. E. 475, and Statev. Glisson, 93 N. C. 506, which hold that it must be taken "by a request to instruct the Jury." The attorney gener......
-
State v. Kiger
... ... 382, 394. Treated otherwise than as an exception for omission ... in the charge, it is waived if not taken at the time ... Taylor v. Plummer, 105 N.C. 56, 11 S.E. 266. Still ... less could such an exception be made for the first time in ... this court. State v. Bruce, 106 N.C. 792, 11 S.E ... 475, and State ... [20 S.E. 458.] ... v. Glisson, 93 N.C. 506, which hold that it must be taken ... "by a request to instruct the jury." The attorney ... general, however, waives the objection that the exception was ... not taken before verdict, and by consent we ... ...
-
State v. Hullen
...of a very conclusive nature, but still we think it was sufficient for the jury to consider upon the question of identity. State v. Bruce, 106 N. C. 792, 11 S. E. 475; State v. Kent, 65 N. C. 311. The general description of the pocketbook as given by the witness Hill and that given by the pr......