Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 N.C. App. 555

205 S.E.2d 106

State v. Elliott

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1974-05-15

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2017

5 state decisions

Relies on State v. Mundy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CAMPBELL, Judge.

¶1 The defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to define, in its charge, the crime of larceny. The charge to the jury was in all other respects excellent, and the trial court did give a detailed charge on the issue of intent. However, nowhere did he define the term “larceny” which is a vital element of the crime of breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny. This was error, and we award a new trial. See State v. Mundy, 265 N.C. 528, 144 S.E. 2d 572 (1967); State v. Hickman, filed in the Court of Appeals on 1 May 1974.

¶2 New trial.

Judges Morris and Vaughn concur.
/21/ncapp/555 · .json · Public domain