Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

STATE v. MACEO PUGH.

Indictment — Issues, Proof, and Variance — Nonsuit.

Where the bill of indictment for larceny and receiving charges ownership of the property as that of a person named therein and as to such owner there is no evidence, the defendant's motion to dismiss as in case of nonsuit should be allowed for failure of proof.

Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant and another with larceny and receiving.

Verdict: Guilty.

Judgment: Six months on the roads.

Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

STACY, C. J.

The bill of indictment charges the defendant and another with the larceny of "334 pounds of leaf tobacco, of the value of $58.97, the goods and chattels of L. B. Jenkins Company," and with receiving same knowing it to have been feloniously stolen or taken in violation of C. S., 4250. There is no evidence on the record tending to show that the tobacco, if stolen or received with knowledge of its larceny by another, was the property of L. B. Jenkins Company. S. v. Haddock, 3 N.C. 162. Proof of the Corpus delicti, therefore, is wanting, or the crime as charged is not supported by the evidence. Hence, the defendant's motion to dismiss or for judgment as in case of nonsuit should have been allowed. Allegation without proof is unavailing. S. v. Corpening, 191 N.C. 751, 133 S.E. 14.

Reversed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. PUGH
(Mar 1, 1929)