State v. Hill

• Decision Date: 20 February 1894
• Citation: 18 S.E. 971,114 N.C. 780
• Parties: STATE v. HILL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

18 S.E. 971

114 N.C. 780

STATE v. HILL.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 20, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Bertie county; Bynum, Judge.

John Hill was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

Defendant took some meat from a store to his wagon, and claimed that Charles Godwin told him to do so and said that it was his. Defendant's counsel, in addressing the jury, alluded to defendant as a respectable white man, and that it was unreasonable to suppose that a man of such appearance would steal the meat. Counsel for the state, in reply, said "Now, gentlemen of the jury, I am a colored man; you are white men. If the defendant was a colored man, you would convict him in five minutes on this evidence." On objection of defendant's counsel, the court held it legitimate argument in reply to what had been said for defendant. The court afterwards charged: "The question for you is, not whether the defendant is a white man or a colored man,--not whether the evidence is sufficient for you to convict a colored man on, or a white man,--but it is for you to consider whether the evidence is sufficient, and does satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant just as he appears before you, is guilty."

Secrecy is not such an essential accompaniment of larceny that an attempt to conceal the taking must be shown.

F. D Winston, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

AVERY J.

Secrecy is usually a part of the evidence of a felonious intent, but it is not an essential accompaniment, so as to make it incumbent on the state to show an attempt to conceal the taking in every instance. State v. Powell, 103 N.C 424, 9 S.E. 627; State v. Fisher, 70 N.C. 78. In the most favorable aspect of the testimony as to the manner of taking and carrying the meat out of the store, the question of the intent of the defendant was one for the jury; and whether he went out of the store carrying it in front of him, or under his overcoat, it was proper for the court below to leave the jury to determine whether it was taken to the wagon at the request of Charles Godwin, and under the belief that Godwin had bought it, or whether it was the purpose of the defendant to deprive the true owner of it and convert it to his own use. If the solicitor abused his privilege, as counsel for the state, in his comments in reference to the color of the defendant, it was not such an extreme case as to take it out of the...