State v. Whitted

Citation65 N.C. 395
PartiesSTATE v. LINNEUS JONES alias LINEUS WHITTED.
Decision Date30 June 1871
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

The turning of a barrel of turpentine which was standing on its head, over on its side, with a felonious intent, is not such an asportation as will constitute Larceny. State v. Jackson, 65 N. C. 305, cited and approved.

Larceny tried before Russell, J., at Spring Term, 1871, of BLADEN Superior Court.

The indictment charged the defendant with stealing a barrel of turpentine, the property of T. D. Love and David H. Ray. The defendant pleaded not guilty, whereupon the jury upon the evidence offered, returned a special verdict, to wit: “That the defendant went to the still of Love & Ray, where there was a lot of turpentine in barrels, which was the property of Love & Ray; that defendant took one of the barrels which was standing on its head, and turned it over on its side, moving it no further, and no more, than was necessary to turn it over from the head to the side; that defendant then went to Love and offered to sell him this barrel of turpentine, inducing him to believe that he, the defendant, had just brought it there for sale; that Love went out and looked at the barrel, and told the defendant to roll it to the scales for him to weigh, which defendant did, Love not knowing at the time that the barrel belonged to him and Ray; that the purpose of defendant was to deceive Love & Ray, and to sell them some of their own turpentine; that this was his intent at the time he turned over the barrel.”

“If his Honor shall be of opinion upon the facts as found by the jury, that the defendant is guilty, then the jury say that the defendant is guilty, in manner and form as charged in the bill of indictment; but if his Honor shall be of a contrary opinion, then the jury say the defendant is not guilty.”

Upon consideration whereof his Honor decided that the defendant was not guilty, and ordered that he be discharged; from which judgment the Solicitor for the State appealed.

Attorney General for the State .

No Counsel for the defendant.

DICK, J.

There must be an asportation of the article alleged to be stolen, to complete the crime of larceny. The question as to what constitutes a sufficient asportation has given rise to many nice distinctions in the Courts of England, and the rules there established have been generally observed by the Courts of this country. Roscoe 570, 2 Bishop Crim. Law, 804.

The least removal of an article, from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Ballard, COA02-963.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • July 1, 2003
    ...asportation'" to support the charge of larceny. State v. Walker, 6 N.C. App. 740, 743, 171S.E.2d 91, 93 (1969) (quoting State v. Jones, 65 N.C. 395, 397 (1871)). Although defendant argues that he was never "in control" of the victim's vehicle, the evidence suggests otherwise. Taken in the l......
  • State v. Walker
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • December 17, 1969
    ...actual or constructive possession of the owner, so as to be under the control of the felon, will be a sufficient asportation.' State v. Jones, 65 N.C. 395, 397. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence permits an inference that defendant removed the rings from the place ......
  • State v. Carswell, 53
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • November 28, 1978
    ...there was sufficient evidence to take the larceny charge to the jury. The defendant's and the Court of Appeals' reliance on State v. Jones, 65 N.C. 395 (1871), is misplaced. In that case, the defendant merely turned a large barrel of turpentine, that was standing on its head, over on its si......
  • State v. Harris, No. COA06-469 (N.C. App. 3/20/2007), COA06-469
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • March 20, 2007
    ...of the felon, will be a sufficient asportation.' State v. Walker, 6 N.C. App. 740, 743, 171 S.E.2d 91, 93 (1969) (quoting State v. Jones, 65 N.C. 395, 397 (1871)). Here, the evidence shows that two officers saw defendant, wearing a backpack, riding a bicycle through the parking lot. Officer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT