State v. Nichols, 92
| Decision Date | 21 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 92,92 |
| Citation | 268 N.C. 152,150 S.E.2d 21 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. William Harris NICHOLS. |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, Asst. Atty. Gen. Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.
J. W. H. Roberts, Greenville, for defendant appellant.
The defendant excepts to the failure of the court to allow his motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of the State's evidence and at the close of all the evidence, the defendants having offered none.
Taken in the light most favorable to the State the evidence shows that a man from New York in a Maryland car is in Greenville, North Carolina, at 2 o'clock in the morning; that he and another occupant of the car get out of it and go to the door of the Harris Super Market; that a sound of shaking is heard by the officer; and that the glass rattled and the door came open, and that immediately afterwards the two men get back in the car and leave. A few blocks away they are apprehended and an examination of the car discloses the possession of a combination of articles that indicate substantial evidence that they are not being intended for use in any legitimate business.
While gloves, tapes, chisels, crowbars, hammers and punches all have their honest and legitimate uses, when no explanation is offered for this combination of articles by a man several hundred miles from his home, in the middle of the night, it is ample to sustain a possession of wrongful and unlawful possession of tools used in store breaking.
The fact that the shaking of the door and its opening was not followed by a physical entrance into the building does not prevent a finding by the jury that they broke and entered the building. The officers' car was close by and the men apparently became frightened and nervous from the sound of glass and the opening of the door, and fled. They had actually opened the door although they had not entered and the crime was complete upon the finding by the jury of the overt act and felonious intent which was amply supported by the evidence.
In State v. Smith, 266 N.C. 747, 147 S.E.2d 165, it is said: '(I)f a person breaks or enters * * * with intent to commit the crime of larceny, he does so with intent to commit a felony, without reference to whether he is completely frustrated before he accomplishes his felonious intent * * * (H)is criminal conduct is not determinable on the basis of the success of his felonious venture.'
Another exception of the defendant is that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mullen
...motion to dismiss.' State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E.2d 431; State v. Thompson, 256 N.C. 593, 124 S.E.2d 728." State v. Nichols, 268 N.C. 152, 150 S.E. 2d 21 (1966) is so similar to the facts here, it bears "Taken in the light most favorable to the State the evidence shows that a man......
-
State v. Moore
...v. Skeen, 182 N.C. 844, 845-46, 109 S.E. 71, 72 (1921)). See also State v. Jones, 291 N.C. 681, 231 S.E.2d 252 (1977); State v. Nichols, 268 N.C. 152, 150 S.E.2d 21 (1966). The trial court did not err by allowing Burton's Based on the court's prejudicial error in allowing the State to prese......
-
Elliott v. People
...and summarizes his sensory impressions thereof because they '* * * can hardly be described in any other manner.' State v. Nichols, 268 N.C. 152, 150 S.E.2d 21 (1966); Accord, State v. Bailey, 4 N.C.App. 407, 167 S.E.2d 24 (1968); See United States v. Alexander, 415 F.2d 1352 (1969), cert. d......
-
State v. Brown
...may be considered with other relevant evidence in determining whether a particular object is drug paraphernalia). Cf. State v. Nichols, 268 N.C. 152, 150 S.E.2d 21 (1966) (a defendant's unexplained possession of several legitimate implements such as gloves, chisels, tape, crowbars, hammers ......