State v. Fulford

• Decision Date: 28 February 1899
• Citation: 124 N.C. 798,32 S.E. 377
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. FULFORD et al.

32 S.E. 377

(124 N.C. 798)

STATE.

v.FULFORD et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 28, 1899.

Criminal Law—Instructions—Sufficiency—Objections—Harmless Error—Larceny.

1. When an exception "to the instruction of the court as given" refers to the want of instruction, it is sufficient as presenting one proposition of law applicable to the whole charge.

2. In a criminal case, whether request be made or not, the court must charge as to the nature of the offense, and the general principles of law essential to a conviction, under Code, § 413, requiring the court to declare and explain to the jury the law arising on the evidence.

3. Where there was no direct evidence of asportation in a larceny case, the failure to instruct as to the general principles of law essential to a conviction was not harmless.

Appeal from superior court, Hyde county; Hoke, Judge.

Stanly Fulford and others were convicted of larceny, and they appeal. New trial.

The Attorney General, for the State.

DOUGLAS, J. The defendants were convicted of the larceny of a sheep. Upon the close of the evidence, they requested the court to instruct the jury that the evidence submitted by the state was not sufficient to justify a verdict of guilty, and that upon the whole evidence they should return a verdict of not guilty. The court refused to charge as requested, and instructed the jury that "it was a question of fact for them to consider, and that if, upon considering the whole evidence, both for the state and for the defendants, they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants were guilty of the larceny of the sheep, as charged in the bill of indictment, they should convict the defendants; and if they were not so satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants, they should acquit them." The defendants excepted to the instruction of the court as given, and to its refusal to instruct the jury as requested.

The latter exception cannot be sustained, as there was some evidence, however slight, yet more than a mere scintilla, tending to prove the offense. The weight of that evidence the jury alone can determine, but in its consideration they should be aided and directed by correct principles of law, to be laid down by thecourt. The entire charge seems to have been given, and we presume that the exception of the defendants "to the instruction of the court as given" refers to the want of instruction, as the charge is unobjectionable as far as it went. This exception is not...