State v. Oldham
| Decision Date | 02 June 1944 |
| Docket Number | 722. |
| Parties | STATE v. OLDHAM. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The defendant was charged with vagrancy. The jury returned verdict of guilty, and from judgment imposing sentence defendant appealed.
Harry McMullan, Attn. Gen., and George B. Patton and Hughes J Rhodes, Asst. Attys. Gen., for State.
John D. Slawter and Richmond Rucker, both of Winston-Salem, for defendant.
The defendant assigns error in the ruling of the court below in denying his motion for judgment of nonsuit. He contends that the evidence offered by the State was insufficient to sustain a conviction for vagrancy as charged in the warrant under which he was put to trial.
The statutory definition of vagrancy (G.S. § 14-336) includes seven classes:
The warrant charged vagrancy under each classification save the seventh. However, it was not contended there was any evidence to support the charge as defined in the fourth, fifth or sixth class. So that the only question is whether there was evidence to support the charge under either of the first three. From the descriptive words contained in these three clauses it appears that a vagrant is substantially defined as a person able to work who spends his time in idleness or immorality, having no property to support him, and without some visible and known means of fair, honest and reputable livelihood.
According to the record before us the only evidence offered by the State came from two police officers who testified that the defendant, about the time charged in the warrant, spent much of his time in and around the bus station and nearby cafe in Winston-Salem; that when questioned defendant said he was not working and did not intend doing so, that he had an income and that he owned a home on Lexington Road. It was further testified by one of the officers that defendant was often seen in the evening at the bus station in the company of a woman who would come on the bus from East Bend, a town some 19 miles away, and who would return on the bus leaving about 9:30; that thereafter defendant would be seen in the bus station with another...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Palmer
...or the defendant, Foxy Palmer, as one who assisted in concealing his corpse. State v. Heglar, 225 N.C. 220, 34 S.E.2d 76; State v. Oldham, 224 N.C. 415, 30 S.E.2d 318; State v. McLeod, 198 N.C. 649, 152 S.E. State v. Satterfield, 121 N.C. 558, 28 S.E. 491. In the nature of things, evidence ......
-
State v. Bowens
...1. As a general rule, it is only the State's evidence that is to be considered in ruling on a motion to dismiss. State v. Oldham, 224 N.C. 415, 30 S.E.2d 318 (1944). A defendant's evidence is "not to be taken into account, unless it tends to explain or make clear that offered by the State."......
-
State v. Bruton, 666
...of defendant's evidence which rebuts the inference of guilt when it is not inconsistent with the State's evidence. State v. Oldham, 224 N.C. 415, 30 S.E.2d 318. No one would attempt to minimize the atrocious and indefensible conduct of the person who murdered Patrolman Herbin. Even so, this......
-
State v. Baldwin
...is entirely negative and the defendant's evidence, without conflicting with this negative evidence, explains it away. State v. Oldham, 224 N.C. 415, 30 S.E.2d 318. We are of the opinion, and so hold, that this contention the defendant is without merit. It is then contended by the defendant ......