State v. Lovelace, 272--Q
Decision Date | 12 January 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 272--Q,272--Q |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Frank Ziser LOVELACE, Jr. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., James F. Bullock, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Eugene C. Hicks, III, Charlotte, for defendant appellant.
Both Dixon and Lovelace were charged with the felonious possession of implements of housebreaking. Both were at the entrance to the restaurant at 1:45 on Sunday morning. They were within three feet of the front entrance door which, when examined, showed evidence of tool marks around the lock. As the two men became alerted to the presence of the officers, Dixon attempted to prevent the discovery of the large screwdriver and hammer, both of which he held, by throwing them away.
The tools, though capable of legitimate use, nevertheless under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, permitted a legitimate inference they were intended for the purpose of breaking into the restaurant. Obviously, the attempt to hide them tends to show their possession was without lawful excuse. Although the tools were seen in the hands of Dixon only, who did not appeal, nevertheless, if the men were acting together in the attempt to use them to force entry into the restaurant, both in law would be equally guilty of the unlawful possession. This Court said, in State v. Marynard, 247 N.C. 462, 101 S.E.2d 340:
The evidence was sufficient to warrant the finding that Dixon and Lovelace were acting together at the time of discovery, shortly after midnight on Sunday morning. Both were together at the dimly lighted door of a closed building. Both had been drinking. After arrest, they were placed in the rear seat of the police car and on the way to headquarters, one of the men volunteered the statement, The evidence warranted the finding the men were acting together and although the tools were only...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Oliver
...death sentence vacated, 408 U.S. 939 [92 S.Ct. 2873, 33 L.Ed.2d 761 (1972) ] (1972) (emphasis supplied); accord, State v. Lovelace, 272 N.C. 496, 158 S.E.2d 624 (1968). State v. Oliver, 302 N.C. at 55, 274 S.E.2d at 200. We also note that at the guilt phase of the trial, defendants were pro......
-
State v. Collington
...substance possession convictions on the basis of an acting in concert theory.1 In addition, this Court held in State v. Lovelace , 272 N.C. 496, 498–99, 158 S.E.2d 624, 625 (1968), that the defendant had been properly convicted of possession of implements of housebreaking, with the items in......
-
State v. Oliver, 78
...586 (1971), death sentence vacated, 408 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 2873, 33 L.Ed.2d 761 (1972) (emphasis supplied); accord, State v. Lovelace, 272 N.C. 496, 158 S.E.2d 624 (1968). There was, consequently, no error in the trial judge's failing to submit the offenses of accessory before or accessory ......
-
State Of North Carolina v. Dumas
...Parks was acting together with Defendant Dumas pursuant to a common plan or purpose to rob the State's witnesses. See State v. Lovelace, 272 N.C. 496, 158 S.E.2d 624 (1968)(holding that the defendant's presence outside the door of a restaurant with the other defendant at 1:45 a.m. while the......