State v. McLean
| Decision Date | 11 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | 579. |
| Parties | STATE v. McLEAN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Moore County; Shaw, Emergency Judge.
J. D McLean was convicted of embezzlement, and he appeals.
No error.
In embezzlement prosecution, evidence that defendant drew checks on employer's funds held sufficient for jury, where defendant testified that he applied checks on his own debts because employer owed him money.
The grand jury returned three bills of indictment charging defendant with the embezzlement of certain sums from the Central Carolina Oil Co., Inc., on three different occasions.
It was admitted that at the time alleged defendant was the secretary-treasurer of the oil company, a corporation, and that on March 13, 1931, he drew a check on the company's fund in the sum of $2,000 in favor of Page Trust Company, and that on May 6, 1931, he drew a check on the company's fund in the sum of $1,000 payable to Bank of Pinehurst, and on April 1, 1931, he drew a check on the company's fund in the sum of $1,717, in favor of United Bank & Trust Company. It was also in evidence that the $1,000 and the $1,717 checks were used to pay a note on which defendant and another were liable.
The state offered evidence tending to show defendant admitted he had applied the funds represented by these checks to his own use.
At the close of state's evidence, motion for nonsuit as to the bill or count with respect to the $2,000 check was sustained.
Defendant testified in substance that the $1,000 and the $1,717 checks were issued by him and applied as credits on his own debts for the reason that the oil company owed him $2,900, and he used the money to pay himself. He also admitted that he applied the $2,000 check on the note he and one McLauchlin had signed, payable to the Page Trust Company, and that he did it to pay McLauchlin's half of the note.
There was a general verdict of guilty, and from judgment thereon defendant appealed.
W. R Clegg, of Carthage, for appellant.
A. A F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and John W. Aiken, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant excepted to the order consolidating for trial the three bills of indictment. In this ruling there was no error. C.S. 4622 authorizes the consolidation of two or more bills "when there are several charges against any person * * * for two or more acts or transactions connected together, or for two or more transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses." State v. Brown, 182 N.C. 761, 108 S.E. 349; State v. Rice, 202 N.C. 411, 163 S.E. 112.
Defendant's exception to the denial of his motion for judgment of nonsuit cannot be sustained. There was evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury. In the language of Davis, J., in State v. Fain, 106 N.C. 760, 11 S.E. 593, 594: "If there was any evidence reasonably sufficient to go to the jury, its weight * * * is a question with which this court has nothing to do."
Embezzlement was not a common-law offense. The acts constituting the offense are set forth in the statute C.S. 4268. It has been defined by this court as "the fraudulent conversion of property by one who has lawfully acquired possession of it for the use and benefit of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...1309 (1941) ("any evidence"); State v. Shermer, 216 N.C. 719, 6 S.E.2d 529 (1940) ("more than a mere scintilla"); State v. McLean, 209 N.C. 38, 182 S.E. 700 (1935) ("any evidence reasonably sufficient to go to the jury"). The more modern cases, however, seem to agree that the amount of evid......
-
State v. Howard
... ... personal benefit, would not necessarily exculpate the ... defendant, or compel his acquittal. State v. Foust, ... 114 N.C. 842, 19 S.E. 275; State v. Summers, 141 ... N.C. 841, 53 S.E. 856; State v. Lancaster, 202 N.C ... 204, 162 S.E. 367; State v. McLean, 209 N.C. 38, 182 ... S.E. 700. The fraudulent intent which constitutes a necessary ... element of the crime of embezzlement, within the meaning of ... the embezzlement statutes, is the intent to embezzle or ... otherwise wilfully and corruptly use or misapply the property ... of the principal ... ...
-
State v. Gilbert
...may be inferred, as well as by direct evidence." State v. Agnew , 294 N.C. 382, 390, 241 S.E.2d 684, 689, (citing State v. McLean , 209 N.C. 38, 182 S.E. 700 (1935) ), cert. denied , 439 U.S. 830, 58 L.Ed. 2d 124 (1978).This Court has found substantial evidence of fraudulent intent when a d......
-
State v. Dickerson, No. COA09-211 (N.C. App. 10/6/2009)
...evidence of intent or by showing such facts and circumstances from which such intent reasonably may be inferred. State v. McLean, 209 N.C. 38, 40, 182 S.E. 700, 701-02 (1935). In the case sub judice, it is undisputed that defendant was employed by Pate-Dawson as an accounts receivable clerk......