State v. Jackson
|31 January 1871
|North Carolina Supreme Court
|THE STATE v. JOHN D. JACKSON.
Where a prosecutor, being drunk and partially paralized and having a belt with money around his body, was sitting with his head bent down, and alone with the defendant in his bar-room, the latter gently removed the belt and money from the prosecutor's body, upon which the prosecutor, raising his head and seeing the belt in his hand, asked him to give back his money to which he replied, “no, I'll keep it,” and afterwards, upon the prosecutor's stepping out for a moment, the defendant refused to let him come in again, and never returned his belt or money, it was held, that these facts tended to prove a larceny of the belt and money by the defendant.
It is a sufficient carrying away to constitute the crime of larceny, that the goods are removed from the place where they were, and the thief has, for an instant, the entire and absolute possession of them.
The case of the State v. Deal, 64 N. C. Rep. 270, explained and approved.
Indictment for larceny, found in the Superior Court of CUMBERLAND County, but removed by the defendant to HARNETT and tried in the Superior Court of that County at the last term, before his Honor, Judge Buxton.
The evidence on the trial was substantially; that the prosecutor, some time in the month of March, 1870, was in the defendant's bar-room, in the town of Fayetteville, having around his body, next to his skin, a cloth belt containing money in United States Treasury notes, National Bank notes, two promissory notes of individual persons and some other papers; that he was sick, and his suspenders becoming unbuttoned, a Mr. Davis who was there remarked upon it when the defendant's bar-keeper went to the prosecutor and buttoned them up, and in doing so, said that the prosecutor had money on his person; that Davis made light of it, when the bar-keeper pulled up his shirt, the defendant being then in the room about four feet from him; that the prosecutor remained in the room sitting down, feeling very sick with his head bent down and his eyes shut, when he felt the hand of the defendant, who was then the only other person in the room, at his left side, and raising up saw the wad of packages in his hand, and told him to give back his money, to which the defendant replied, “No, I'll keep it;” that he, the prosecutor, then went out and soon came back to the defendant's bar-room, when he told him to go out, and put his hand on him, and he left; that he, the prosecutor, returned next morning and asked defendant for his money, when he said that he did not have it, and had lost it; that the prosecutor had never recovered it; that before the belt with the money was taken, the prosecutor had on the same day deposited with the defendant, for safe keeping, his pocket-book, containing some money, and his shawl, neither of which articles had ever been returned to him.
The defendant's counsel insisted that if this evidence were taken to be true, it was not sufficient to support the charge of larceny, for that it proved only a trespass.
His Honor instructed the jury that if the defendant took the articles from the person of the prosecutor, under the circumstances testified to by him, with the intent to appropriate them to his own use, they should find him guilty of larceny. There was a verdict of guilty, upon which judgment was given, and the defendant appealed.
B. &. ...
To continue readingRequest your trial
In re D.K.
...of the owner." State v. Walker, 6 N.C.App. 740, 743, 171 S.E.2d 91, 93 (1969) (citing State v. Green, 81 N.C. 560 (1879); State v. Jackson, 65 N.C. 305 (1871)). "`A bare removal from the place in which he found the goods, though the thief does not quite make off with them, is a sufficient a......
State v. Walker
...original status was such as would constitute a complete severance from the possession of the owner. State v. Green, 81 N.C. 560; State v. Jackson, 65 N.C. 305; 52 A C.J.S. Larceny § 6, p. 427. There was testimony that defendant was successful in putting some of the rings in his pocket. This......
State v. Carswell, 53
...must not only move the goods, but he must also have them in his possession, or under his control, even if only for an instant. State v. Jackson, 65 N.C. 305 (1871). This defendant picked the air conditioner up from its stand and laid it on the floor. This act was sufficient to put the objec......
State v. Carswell, No. 7725SC876
...status was such as would constitute a complete severance from the possession of the owner." (Emphasis added.) See also State v. Jackson, 65 N.C. 305, 308 (1871), where our Court held that a sufficient showing of asportation is made ". . . if the goods are removed from the place where they w......