State v. Rogers, 582
| Decision Date | 18 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 582,582 |
| Citation | 114 S.E.2d 355,252 N.C. 499 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Beula ROGERS. STATE v. Eva FOSTER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., H. Horton Rountree, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
T. Glenn Henderson, Robert S. Cahoon, Greensboro, for defendants-appellants.
First and foremost, defendants in their assignments of error contend that judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed for that the evidence is insufficient to be submitted to the jury on the charges set forth in the several warrants on which defendants were tried.
The State, on the other hand, contends that the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, is full and complete and points unerringly to the guilt of the defendants.
In passing upon the legal sufficiency of the evidence so taken when the State relies upon circumstantial evidence for a conviction of a criminal offense, as in the present case, 'the rule is that the facts established or advanced on the hearing must be of such a nature and so connected or related as to point unerringly to the defendant's guilt and to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis.' State v. Stiwinter, 211 N.C. 278, 189 S.E. 868, and numerous other cases cited in State v. Rhodes, N.C., 113 S.E.2d 917.
And while the probative weight of legally sufficient proof is for the jury, the sufficiency of proof in law is for the court. State v. Prince, 182 N.C. 788, 108 S.E. 330.
So in considering a motion for judgment of nonsuit under G.S. § 15-173, the general rule, as stated in State v. Johnson, 199 N.C. 429, 154 S.E. 730, 731, and in numerous other cases before this Court, is that 'if there be any evidence tending to prove the fact in issue, or which reasonably conduces to its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury,' approved in State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E.2d 431. See State v. Rhodes, supra.
In this connection, it is settled law in this State that in passing upon a motion for judgment as of nonsuit in criminal prosecutions, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State, and it is entitled to every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, and if there be any competent evidence to support the charge in the warrant, the case is one for the jury. Contradiction and discrepancies, even in the State's evidence, are for the jury to resolve, and do not warrant nonsuit. Ordinarily only evidence favorable to the State will be considered. See Index to North Carolina Reports, Criminal Law, Sec. 98--foot notes numbered 800 et seq.
Indeed in this State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Haddock, 76
...conjecture in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury.'' Winborne, C. J., said for the Court in State v. Rogers (State v. Foster), 252 N.C. 499, 114 S.E.2d 355, 359: 'In this connection, it is settled law in this State that in passing upon a motion for judgment as of nonsuit ......
-
State v. Thompson, 721
...in the actual or constructive possession of defendant, there was ample evidence to support the verdict. G.S. § 18-32; State v. Rogers, 252 N.C. 499, 114 S.E.2d 355, and cases Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the twenty-one pints of whiskey were in de......
-
State v. Moore, 7329SC736
...in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury."' 'Winborne, C.J., said for the Court in State v. Rogers and State v. Foster, 252 N.C. 499, 114 S.E.2d 355, 359: 'In this connection, it is settled law in this State that in passing upon a motion for judgment as of nonsuit in crimin......