State v. Godwin
| Decision Date | 13 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 6827SC423,6827SC423 |
| Citation | 3 N.C.App. 55,164 S.E.2d 86 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. John C. GODWIN. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., by Millard R. Rich, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
N. Dixon Lackey, Jr., Shelby, for defendant.
The evidence for the State tended to show the following:
The Stamey Company building at Polkville in Cleveland County was locked at the close of business at approximately seven o'clock p.m. on 5 August 1968. That the defendant was not given permission to go into the building. That at about five o'clock a.m. on 6 August 1968, Mr. R. R. McKinney, an officer of the State Highway Patrol, went to the Stamey Company building where he observed the defendant run out of the rear door of the building carrying an object in his hand. When defendant failed to halt at his command, Officer McKinney fired his revolver and defendant fell to the ground (he was not struck by the bullet) and as he was falling he dropped the object he had been carrying. At about the same time one J. D. Haroldson also came out of the rear door with his hands in the air. Both defendant and Haroldson were immediately placed under arrest. A 'tire tool' was found lying beside defendant where he had fallen.
Mr. J. W. Norman, a deputy sheriff of Cleveland County, arrived immediately and conducted further investigation. The front door had been broken open from the outside, and the rear door had been broken open from the inside. In the office the Stamey Company safe had been damaged; the handle and the combination dial had been broken off. A canister of tear gas on the inside of the safe had been activated and it was several minutes before the gas cleared the building sufficiently to allow the officers to enter comfortably. A second 'tire tool' was found lying beside the safe. No one else was found in or near the Stamey Company building.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, it would permit the jury to find: That the defendant and Haroldson, armed with two tire tools, unlawfully broke open the front door and entered the Stamey Company building with intent to steal property of Stamey Company. That they attempted to pry or break open the Stamey Company safe where money and other valuables were kept. That in beating upon the safe they activated the tear gas canister and were forced to retreat from the premises. That they pried open the rear door from the inside and were apprehended as they went out.
Clearly the State's evidence although partly circumstantial, was sufficient to repel defendant's motion for judgment of nonsuit on the charge of felonious breaking and entering, and the charge of attempting to force open or pick the safe. The test of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to withstand a motion for nonsuit is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bagley
...of the offense. Defendant contends, on the authority of State v. Garrett, 263 N.C. 773, 140 S.E.2d 315 (1965) and State v. Godwin, 3 N.C.App. 55, 164 S.E.2d 86 (1968) (Godwin following the rationale and holding of Garrett ), that it was error for the trial court to permit the jury to consid......
-
State v. Puckett
...other implement of housebreaking" as contained in G.S. 14-55. State v. Garrett, 263 N.C. 773, 140 S.E.2d 315 (1965); State v. Godwin, 3 N.C.App. 55, 58, 164 S.E.2d 86 (1968). The defendant contends that the term "other implements of housebreaking" in G.S. 14-55 is unconstitutionally vague. ......
-
State v. Bagley, 37
...Court's ruling in State v. Garrett, 263 N.C. 773, 140 S.E.2d 315 (1965), and upon the Court of Appeals' decision in State v. Godwin, 3 N.C.App. 55, 164 S.E.2d 86 (1968), cert. denied, 275 N.C. 341 In Garrett, defendant was arrested in the early morning hours after he was seen walking along ......
-
State v. McCuien
...(1967); State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25, 153 S.E.2d 741 (1967); State v. Blackmon, 6 N.C.App. 66, 169 S.E.2d 472 (1969) and State v. Godwin, 3 N.C.App. 55, 164 S.E.2d 86 (1968), cert. denied, 275 N.C. In State v. Godwin, Supra, this court stated the rule as follows: '* * * The test of the suffic......