State v. Carson

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SHEPHERD
• Citation: State v. Carson, 20 S.E. 384, 115 N.C. 743 (N.C. 1894)
• Decision Date: 20 November 1894
• Parties: STATE. v. CARSON et al.

20 S.E. 384

115 N.C. 743

STATE.

v.CARSON et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 20, 1894.

Criminal Law—Instructions — Circumstantial Evidence.

Where the evidence against the defendants in a criminal case was circumstantial, it was not error to refuse to instruct the jury as a rule of law "that the strength of circumstantial evidence must be equal to the strength of the testimony of one credible eyewitness."

Appeal from superior court Yadkin county; Battle, Judge.

Tom Carson and others were convicted of a crime, and appeal. Affirmed.

The Attorney General, for the State.

SHEPHERD, C. J. The evidence in this case was circumstantial, and the defendants except to the instructions of his honor on the ground that he failed "to lay down to the jury as a rule of law that the strength of circumstantial evidence must be equal to the strength of the testimony of one credible eyewitness." This very point was raised in State v. Norwood,...