State v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 78 N.C. 470 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM PATTERSON. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for Larceny, tried at January Special Term, 1878, of NORTHAMPTON Superior Court, before McKoy, J.
The defendant was indicted in two counts, one for larceny and the other for felonious receiving forty pounds of lint cotton, the property of the Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad Company.
On the trial the State introduced witnesses who testified to the following facts: On the night of December 22d, 1877, lint cotton was taken from certain bales of cotton in possession of the company for transportation, while of the platform of the company's ware-house. On the same night four guano bags filled with lint cotton, and bearing the mark “W. C. G. & Special Compound,” were found, two of them hidden under a freight car that stood on a turn-out near by, and two others on the track of the road. The defendant was seen the same night behind some cord wood near the place, and was also recognized by his voice.
On January 18th following, by the defendant's direction, some seed cotton was removed from a crib in his possession and about one mile distant from the ware-house, and while being removed two guano bags of lint cotton were discovered hidden under the seed cotton. The cotton in these bags, as well as the bags themselves, and the marks on them corresponded with those found near the ware-house on December 22d, as stated.
The defendant insisted that there was no evidence to go to the jury on which they were warranted in finding the defendant guilty of either charge. The objection was overruled, the evidence submitted to the jury, and a verdict of guilty rendered. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.
Attorney General for the State .
Mr. S. J. Wright, for the defendant .
SMITH, C. J. (After stating the facts as above.)
The only question arising on the record for us to consider is;--Was there any evidence of the larceny, or of the felonious receiving, which warranted the conviction of the defendant?
If there was no evidence, or if the evidence was so slight as not reasonably to warrant the inference of the defendant's guilt, or furnish more than materials for a mere suspicion, it was error to leave the issue to be passed on by the jury, and they should have been directed to acquit. Cobb v. Fogleman, 1 Ire. 440; State v. Williams, 2 Jones 194. If, however, there was evidence proper to be submitted to the jury, the jury alone must weigh and determine its credibility and sufficiency to establish the fact in dispute. It is of the highest importance in the administration of the law, alike in civil and criminal trials, that the respective and well marked functions of the Judge and jury be kept separate and distinct, and in their exercise, neither one be allowed to interfere with the other.
The question now presented is this: Do the facts proved, if believed by the jury, reasonably warrant the inference deduced from them of the defendant's guilt? We are of the opinion that the evidence was properly left to the jury, and that it is not so defective as to authorize the Court on that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson
...of the offense. State v. Woods, 311 N.C. 80, 316 S.E.2d 229 (1984); State v. Joyner, 301 N.C. 18, 269 S.E.2d 125 (1980); State v. Patterson, 78 N.C. 470 (1878). In order for the doctrine to be invoked, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the property is stolen; (2) it w......
-
State v. Barnes
...the evidence is stronger or weaker[ ] as the possession is nearer to or more distant from the time of the commission." State v. Patterson, 78 N.C. 470, 472-473 (1878). While the fact of recent possession has been said to raise a "presumption," it is more accurately deemed to raise a permiss......
-
State v. Burton, 504
...and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it.' State v. Prince, 182 N.C. 788, 108 S.E. 330, 331; State v. Patterson, 78 N.C. 470; State v. Martin, 191 N.C. 404, 132 S.E. 16; State v. Epps, 214 N.C. 577, 200 S.E. 20; State v. Norggins, 215 N.C. 220, 1 S.E.2d 'The m......
-
State v. Joyner
...and the evidence is stronger or weaker, as the possession is nearer to or more distant from the time of the commission." State v. Patterson, 78 N.C. 470, 472-473 (1878). While the fact of recent possession has been said to raise a "presumption," it is more accurately deemed to raise a permi......