State v. Goins, 506

Decision Date29 April 1964
Docket NumberNo. 506,506
Citation136 S.E.2d 97,261 N.C. 707
PartiesSTATE, v. Joe GOINS, Jr. STATE v. Jesse James MARTIN.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Richard T. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

J. W. Hoyle, Sanford, for defendant Joe Goins, Jr., appellant.

H. M. Jackson, Sanford, for defendant Jesse James Martin, appellant.

HIGGINS, Justice.

Each defendant contended the evidence as to him, being in large measure circumstantial, was insufficient to go to the jury, and, for that reason, the court committed error in denying the motions to dismiss. 'When a motion is made for a * * * directed verdict of not guilty, the trial judge must determine whether there is substantial evidence of every essential element of the offense. In so far as the duty of the judge is concerned, it is immaterial whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination of both. If it is substantial as to all essential elements of the offense, it is the duty of the judge to submit the case to the jury. * * * Substantial evidence of guilt is required before the court can send the case to the jury. Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required before the jury can convict.' State v. Davis, 246 N.C. 73, 97 S.E.2d 444.

The State's evidence, briefly summarized, disclosed that Wilford Harrison, while at work at a filling station in Sanford about two o'clock on the morning of June 28, 1963, was robbed by two colored men who had dark stockings over their faces. One of the men struck him twice on the head with a single barrel shotgun. They took about $75.00 in bills from his pocket and in change from a coin container on his belt. The men were in the station for only about two minutes. During that time one called the other 'James.'

State's Exhibit A, a single barrel shotgun, was identified by the witness Harrison as the gun the colored boy used in the assault and robbery. 'I identify the gun from the single 'trick' (disassembly screw with a spur) on the side of the gun. * * * I had never seen one like it before. I have seen it since then * * * when it was brought to the station by a policeman.'

Mancy Mae Johnson testified she saw the defendant Jesse James Martin in Sanford about 8:00 o'clock p. m. (on June 27, 1963) at her house. At his request she gave him a colored stocking which he put over his face and asked whether she could recognize him. When she gave a negative answer he requested a second stocking which she also gave him. At about 5:00 o'clock on the next morning (28th) he came back to her house and said, 'I came into a lot of money last night. * * * We robbed a station.' He had 29 one-dollar bills which he asked her to keep for him. She refused. '(He) said he hit him in the head twice with the shotgun and would have shot him but he knew the gun would sound so loud * * * somebody would probably get there before they could get away.' She further testified that Jesse James Martin and Joe Goins were brothers-in-law and lived together.

Floyd Council testified that State's Exhibit 'A' is his gun; that the defendant Joe Goins borrowed it to kill a dog. 'I came in from work * * * he * * * told me he would get it when it got a little darker. * * * He came back about 9:30 at night * * * came to the back door * * * asked for the gun and I gave it to him. * * * (next day) I found him coming down the street, he did not have my gun. * * * I asked him for my gun * * * and he said he would bring it back * * * I went back and got it myself.' The witness kept the gun in his possession until the police made inquiry about it and he turned it over to the officer who produced it in court.

Jesse James Martin testified that he had nothing whatever to do with the robbery; denied much of Nancy Mae Johnson's testimony. He did admit, 'I got the $30.00 in one-dollar bills that I left with my brother-in-law by saving it up. I had been saving it up to go to Durham on.' He also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Vestal
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 12 May 1971
    ... ... If so, the motion is properly denied. State v. Rowland, 263 N.C. 353, 139 S.E.2d 661; State v. Virgil, 263 N.C. 73, 138 S.E.2d 777; State v. Goins and State v. Martin, 261 N.C. 707, 136 S.E.2d 97. In making this determination, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the ... ...
  • State v. LeDuc
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 19 August 1980
    ... ... If so, the motion is properly denied. State v. Rowland, 263 N.C. 353, 139 S.E.2d 661; State v. Virgil, 263 N.C. 73, 138 S.E.2d 777; State v. Goins and State v. Martin, 261 N.C. 707, 136 S.E.2d 97. In making this determination, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the ... ...
  • State v. Copeland
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 23 June 1971
    ... ... If so, the motion is properly denied. State v. Rowland, 263 N.C. 353, 139 S.E.2d 661; State v. Virgil, 263 N.C. 73, 138 S.E.2d 777; State v. Goins and State v. Martin, 261 N.C. 707, 136 S.E.2d 97. In making this determination, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the ... ...
  • State v. Greene, No. 82
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 12 May 1971
    ... ... State v. O'Neal, 273 N.C. 514, 160 S.E.2d 473; State v. Walker, 269 N.C. 135, 152 S.E.2d 133; State v. Goins and State v. Martin, 261 N.C. 707, 136 S.E.2d 97. Upon such motion, it is [278 N.C. 655] elementary that the evidence must be considered in the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT