State v. Huffman
| Decision Date | 11 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | 651. |
| Citation | 182 S.E. 705,209 N.C. 10 |
| Parties | STATE v. HUFFMAN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Pless, Judge.
Frank Huffman was convicted of breaking and entering into a building with the felonious intent to steal, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Probative value of evidence is for jury to determine.
This is a criminal action in which the defendant, Frank Huffman, was tried at September term, 1935, of the superior court of Guilford county on an indictment charging that on or about November 12, 1934, at and in Guilford county, N. C., the said defendant did feloniously break and enter into a building owned and occupied by the Borden Brick & Tile Company, with the felonious intent to steal, take, and carry away from said building certain articles of personal property therein. The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
From judgment that he be confined in the State's Prison for a term of not less than three or more than five years, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the admission, over his objections, of evidence offered by the state, and the refusal of the court to allow his motion at the close of all the evidence for judgment as of nonsuit.
Younce & Younce, of Greensboro, for appellant.
A. A F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and John W. Aiken, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
Neither of the assignments of error on this appeal can be sustained.
The evidence for the state showed that some time during the night of November 12, 1934, a building owned and occupied by the Borden Brick & Tile Company and located on Westover Terrace in the city of Greensboro, N.C., was entered through a rear door by some person or persons, with the felonious intent to steal, take, and carry away from said building articles of personal property then in said building. The rear door opening into said building was prized open after the lock had been broken by a pinch bar. There was a safe in the vault in the building in which was money and valuable papers. The door to the vault, which had been locked by the manager of the Borden Brick & Tile Company, before he left the building at the close of the previous day's business, had been blown open. The combination lock on the safe in the vault had been blown to pieces. Nothing was taken from the safe or from the vault. Police officers of the city of Greensboro, in response to a summons from the manager of the Borden Brick & Title Company, arrived at the building, at about 8 o'clock on the morning after the building had been entered, and made an examination of the premises.
W. P Whitley, a police officer of the city of Greensboro, who was found by the court to be a fingerprint expert, testified as follows:
"I am in charge of the Identification Bureau of the Police Department of the City of Greensboro. I have had practical experience for ten years in identifying persons by means of their fingerprints. I had two years of training for this work in the Police Department of Washington City. I have taken the fingerprints of over ten thousand persons, and have never found two persons who had the same fingerprints.
During the morning of November 12, 1934, I went to the plant of the Borden Brick & Tile Company in the City of Greensboro. I found that the door to the vault in the office building had been forced open. It appeared to have been blown open. Inside the vault there was a safe. An attempt had been made to enter the safe. I found soap and glycerine packed around the crease in the door to the safe. In another office in the building I found a desk. The drawers to this desk had been prized open by some kind of an instrument. There was a metal box in one of the drawers.
My first examination for fingerprints was at the rear door of the building. I did not find any good fingerprints there. I then went to the vault, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rudolph, 7810SC749
...identification. State v. Tew, 234 N.C. 612, 68 S.E.2d 291 (1951); State v. Helms, 218 N.C. 592, 12 S.E.2d 243 (1940); State v. Huffman, 209 N.C. 10, 182 S.E. 705 (1935); State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E. 252 (1931). We have repeatedly said that the testimony of a fingerprint expert is ......
-
State v. Scott, 37
...establishment of a link between the defendant and the tools used in the commission of the crime, State v. Reid, supra; State v. Huffman, 209 N.C. 10, 182 S.E. 705 (1935). When a defendant takes the stand and denies that he was ever at the scene of the crime, his inability to offer a plausib......
-
State v. Helms
...671, 158 S.E. 252; State v. Huffman, 209 N.C. 10, 182 S.E. 705. See also Annotations 16 A.L.R. 370, 63 A.L.R. 1324. In State v. Huffman, supra [209 N.C. 10, 182 S.E. 707], this court said: "The testimony of the expert was competent as evidence tending to show that defendant was present when......
-
State v. Blackmon, 6920SC81
...pieces of glass but it was not determined by whom they had been made. After noting with approval the principles stated in State v. Huffman, 209 N.C. 10, 182 S.E. 705, and in State v. Helms, supra, the court 'In the light of these principles the testimony of the fingerprint expert tending to......