State v. Tillman, 835
| Decision Date | 20 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 835,835 |
| Citation | 152 S.E.2d 159,269 N.C. 276 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. James Hiram TILLMAN. |
Fred Darlington, III, Burlington, for defendant.
This appeal presents only the question whether the State's evidence is sufficient to withstand the motions for nonsuit. The State's evidence is circumstantial, but the test of its sufficiency is the same whether the evidence be circumstantial, direct, or both. State v. Bogan, 266 N.C. 99, 145 S.E.2d 374. '(I)f 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.' State v. Johnson, 199 N.C. 429, 431, 154 S.E. 730, 731. Accord, State v. Roux, 266 N.C. 555, 146 S.E.2d 654; State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E.2d 431.
Defendant contends that the State's evidence discloses no more than an opportunity for the defendant to have taken the money and that it further reveals that others had an equal opportunity to have taken it. With this contention we cannot agree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State--as we are required to do in evaluating a motion for nonsuit, 1 Strong, N.C. Index, Criminal Law § 99--it is clear that defendant and Overman spent a large part of the week before Friday September 3, in apparent idleness at the Cum-Park Plaza Shopping Center. They did not work there, but sat in an automobile or loitered in the vicinity of Byrd's and the Remnant Shop. The reasonable inference is that they were reconnoitering one or both of those places of business, probably Byrd's since Overman was seen at least twice inside that store. Their actions aroused the suspicions of Joe Cole, a former sheriff of the county, who knew them both, and he mentioned their activities to Young, the administrative assistant to one of the owners of the shopping center. Undoubtedly, Cole thought that the two men were 'casing the joint.' On Friday at noon, Young went with a policeman into Byrd's--for what purpose the record does not specifically state--but their presence coincided with Overman's and defendant Tillman's, whom they encountered in that part of the store which was clearly posted for 'Employees Only.' At a time when the manager was out to lunch, defendant Tillman was inside the office from which the money was taken. At the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McLaughlin
...it, the motion to nonsuit should be overruled.' State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509, 160 S.E.2d 469 (1968).' Accord, State v. Tillman, 269 N.C. 276, 152 S.E.2d 159 (1967); State v. Bogan, 266 N.C. 99, 145 S.E.2d 374 The evidence in this case clearly meets that standard and was properly submitted ......
-
Eastern Carolina Regional Housing Authority v. Lofton, COA14–212.
... ... the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal." State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 63233, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (quoting In re Appeal of The Greens ... ...
-
State v. Ledbetter, 6929SC154
...such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury." (citation omitted) State v. Tillman, 269 N.C. 276, 152 S.E.2d 159. 'The rule stated in (State v. Tillman, Supra) does not mean that the evidence, in the Court's opinion, excludes every reaso......
-
State v. Brown, 68SC42
...of this case and the attendant facts make it a question for the jury. State v. Mabry, 269 N.C. 293, 152 S.E.2d 112; State v. Tillman, 269 N.C. 276, 152 S.E.2d 159. If there is more than a scintilla of competent evidence to support the allegations of the warrant or bill of indictment, motion......