State v. Lambert
Decision Date | 16 January 1929 |
Docket Number | 580. |
Citation | 146 S.E. 139,196 N.C. 524 |
Parties | STATE v. LAMBERT et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Swain County; Walter E. Moore, Judge.
All who are present, either actually or constructively, at the place of a crime, and are either aiding, abetting, assisting or advising its commission, or are present for such purpose, are principles in the crime.
Herman Lambert and another were convicted of breaking and entering otherwise than by burglarious breaking, and they appeal. No error.
Herman Lambert, Albert Allison, and Henry McCoy were indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling house of Mose Owl and stealing certain personal property therefrom. There were also counts in the bill of indictment for larceny and receiving stolen goods knowing they had been stolen. They pleaded not guilty, and all three were convicted of breaking and entering otherwise than by burglarious breaking and duly sentenced. The defendant Henry McCoy did not appeal.
Mose Owl testified the goods were stolen on Thursday evening, May 31, 1928, and found on the following Monday morning, between 1 and 2 o'clock. He and his family left home about 6 o'clock Thursday evening to attend an entertainment and returned home that evening about 11 o'clock. There was missing from the house a 25-20 Winchester high-power gun, a box of shells, a sack of "Town-Cryer" flour, 50 pounds of sugar, in two 25-pound sacks, a dollar's worth of meat, a pair of scissors, some slippers, and a shawl. The property was worth about $50. Henry McCoy, the day the house was broken into, about 1 o'clock, stopped at Mose Owl's house for about 10 minutes and asked him if he was going to the entertainment. Mose Owl identified the gun; it was marked on the barrel. The other property--"All I say is that they are like mine."
Arnold Cooper testified that he was with the officer (Sutton) when they went to defendant Herman Lambert's house. They found 50 pounds of sugar, 25-pound sack of "Town-Cryer" flour; it had not been opened. It was found in the bed covered up. That defendant Herman Lambert said he had gotten out. The shawl was found about two weeks later. The cartridges were in defendant Albert Allison's pocket. The three defendants were all in Herman Lambert's house, a little cabin of one room. All three of the defendants were seen together on Sunday. In the house was found also a pair of pants and belt that belonged to witness. At the preliminary hearing, Tom Lambert, the father of Herman Lambert, told the court that Henry McCoy, the defendant, had something he wanted to say, and they told him to go ahead and he said he wanted to say he would take all the blame on himself and that the other boys did not have anything to do with it. He found the scissors and slippers in a duck sack coat defendant Herman Lambert said was his; found the shawl about two weeks afterwards near Tom Lambert's place. With the shawl he found a coat, a couple of shirts, and a pair of shoes that had been taken from him. Herman Lambert stated none of the stuff belonged to him; he also said that Albert Allison had been wearing the coat.
Mrs Mose Owl testified:
A. J Sutton, a deputy sheriff, was with Arnold Cooper in the searching party. They knocked, and it was about 30 minutes before they were let in.
Tom Lambert was defendant Herman Lambert's father. When near his house, defendant Henry McCoy tried to escape; also defendant Albert Allison. Herman Lambert after the stuff was found, said it was not his stuff and he knew nothing about it. The witness further testified:
Herman Lambert and the other defendants testified in their own behalf. Herman Lambert set up an alibi and denied breaking into Mose Owl's house. He contended that Henry McCoy brought the stuff to his house.
Albert Allison testified that he was 23 years old. He set up an alibi and denied breaking into Mose Owl's house. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Primus
... ... both being present, both are principals and equally guilty ... '. State v. Jarrell, supra [141 N.C. 722, 53 ... S.E. 128] ... The ... evidence against Johnson was sufficient to carry the case to ... the jury, and his demurrer was properly overruled. State ... v. Lambert, 196 N.C. 524, 146 S.E. 139; State v ... Baldwin, 193 N.C. 566, 137 S.E. 590; State v. Hart, ... These ... are the only exceptions presented by the appeal. They are ... without special merit on the present record, and are not ... sustained. The court's inquiry, upon ... ...
-
State v. Everhardt
... ... We ... think there is no error in the charge as to aider and ... abettor. State v. Jarrell, 141 N.C. 725, 53 S.E ... 127, 8 Ann. Cas. 438; State v. Cloninger, 149 N.C ... at page 572, 63 S.E. 154; State v. Baldwin, 193 N.C ... 566, 137 S.E. 590; State v. Lambert", 196 N.C. 524, ... 146 S.E. 139; State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E ... 604; State v. Hoffman, 199 N.C. 328, 154 S.E. 314 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. McKinnon
...as to aiding and abetting, and the charge fully borne out by authorities. State v. Baldwin, 193 N.C. 566, 137 S.E. 590; State v. Lambert, 196 N.C. 524, 146 S.E. 139. court below charged fully the law of murder in the first and second degrees and manslaughter, and every phase of the law bear......
-
State v. Jackson, 575
...were sufficient to go to the jury on both counts in the indictment. State v. Allison, 265 N.C. 512, 144 S.E.2d 578; State v. Lambert, 196 N.C. 524, 146 S.E.2d 139; State v. Williams, 187 N.C. 492, 122 S.E. However, before the defendant's guilt on either count may be inferred from the defend......