State v. Dorsett, 297
| Citation | 95 S.E.2d 90,245 N.C. 47 |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 297,297 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | STATE, v. Lawrence Allen DORSETT. |
George D. Hovey, Hickory, Nance, Barrington & Collier, Fayetteville, for defendant appellant.
George B. Patton, Atty. Gen., T. W. Bruton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The record and case on appeal show twenty-four assignments of error, in none of which, after careful consideration, is prejudicial error made to appear.
Assignments 14 and 16 based upon exceptions of like number are directed to denial of defendant's motions aptly made for judgment as of nonsuit. However, taking the evidence offered upon the trial in Superior Court, as summarized hereinbefore, in the light most favorable to the State, it is abundantly sufficient to take the case to the jury and to support the verdict returned by the jury on which judgments were rendered. Even counsel for defendant, while contending in their brief that the evidence offered by the State amounted to no more than a scintilla, say: 'True it was a scintilla from which an inference of guilt might possibly be inferred * * *.'
In this connection, the statute relating to kidnapping, G.S. § 14-39, provides, in pertinent part, that 'it shall be unlawful for any person * * * to kidnap * * * any human being * * *.' And the word 'kidnap' as defined by Webster, means 'To carry (anyone) away by unlawful force or by fraud, and against his will, or to seize and detain him for the purpose of so carrying him away.' See State v. Witherington, 226 N.C. 211, 37 S.E.2d 497.
And the statute relating to robbery with firearms, G.S. § 14-87, declares in pertinent part that 'Any person or persons who, having in possession or with the use or threatened use of any firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement or means, whereby the life of a person is endangered or threatened, unlawfully takes or attempts to take personal property from another * * * shall be guilty of a felony * * *.'
By means of several assignments of error appellant undertakes to show prejudicial error in respect to the bloodhound which the witness McGuire had with him on the day of the alleged crime, when he found defendant with bag of money. However, a perusal of the case on appeal reveals that the trial judge sustained objections to evidence as to activities of the dog, and the record fails to show that defendant made request, at the time, for any special instruction. But the record does show that in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terrell v. State
...S.E. 409 (1929); State v. McLeod, 198 N.C. 649, 152 S.E. 895 (1930); State v. Lee, 211 N.C. 326, 190 S.E. 234 (1939); State v. Dorsett, 245 N.C. 47, 95 S.E.2d 90 (1956); State v. Rowland, 263 N.C. 353, 139 S.E.2d 661 (1965) Ohio-State v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34, 82 N.E. 969, 13 L.R.A.,N.S......
-
State v. Murphy
...State v. Witherington, 226 N.C. 211, 37 S.E.2d 497 (1946); State v. Streeton, 231 N.C. 301, 56 S.E.2d 649 (1949); State v. Dorsett, 245 N.C. 47, 95 S.E.2d 90 (1956); State v. Gough, 257 N.C. 348, 126 S.E.2d 118, 95 A.L.R.2d 441 (1962); State v. Lowry, 263 N.C. 536, 139 S.E.2d 870 (1965); St......
-
State v. Roberts
...State v. Witherington, 226 N.C. 211, 37 S.E.2d 497 (1946); State v. Streeton, 231 N.C. 301, 56 S.E.2d 649 (1949); State v. Dorsett, 245 N.C. 47, 95 S.E.2d 90 (1956); State v. Gough, Supra; State v. Lowry, Supra; State v. Bruce, Supra; State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225, 150 S.E.2d 406 (1966); St......
-
State v. Ingland
...and detain him for the purpose of so carrying him away. State v. Witherington, 226 N.C. 211, 37 S.E.2d 497 (1946); State v. Dorsett, 245 N.C. 47, 95 S.E.2d 90 (1956); State v. Gough, supra (257 N.C. 348, 126 S.E.2d 118). Later cases omitted the italicized portion of the definition. State v.......