Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

218 N.C. 466

11 S.E.2d 301

State v. . Cannon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 7, 1940

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1940-11-07

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The record is barren of any evidence of larceny on the part of Howard Cannon [the defendant], unless the possession by him of the goods ... is evidence of such guilt. While it is very generally held that the recent possession of stolen property . . . raises a presumption of fact. . . of such guilt, still it would seem that on the present record no such presumption should prevail because the State’s evidence shows the larceny to have been committed by others, and fails to connect the defendant in any way with the felonious taking. . . .” 218 N.C. at 467 , 11 S.E. 2d at 302 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 36 N.C. App. 430 - State v. Musselwhite

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1940-11-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1978

8 state decisions

401940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stacy, C. J.

¶1 The record is barren of any evidence of larceny on the part of Howard Cannon, unless the possession by him of the goods on the day following their taking is evidence of such guilt. While it is very generally held that the recent possession of stolen property is a circumstance tending to show the larceny thereof by the possessor (S. v. Best, 202 N. C., 9, 161 S. E., 535), or that it raises a presumption of fact (S. v. Anderson, 162 N. C., 571, 77 S. E., 238), or a presumption of law (S. v. Graves, 72 N. C., 482), of such guilt, still it would seem that on the present record no such presumption should prevail because the State’s evidence shows the larceny to have been committed by others, and fails to connect the defendant in any way with the felonious taking. S. v. Lippard, 183 N. C., 786, 111 S. E., 722; S. v. Anderson, supra. The larceny was completed when the cigarettes were taken from the boxcar and secreted in South Park. The thief himself, a witness for the State, testified that he did not know Mr. Cannon and had never seen *468 him prior to tbe day of trial when be was pointed out to bim in tbe courtroom.

¶2 We are constrained to bold, therefore, tbat tbe demurrer to tbe evidence on tbe count of larceny should have been sustained. S. v. English, 214 N. C., 564, 199 S. E., 920.

¶3 Tbe demurrer to tbe evidence was properly overruled as to tbe third count. But tbe verdict on this count is insufficient to support tbe judgment. S. v. Lassiter, 208 N. C., 251, 179 S. E., 891; S. v. Barbee, 197 N. C., 248, 148 S. E., 249. It neither alludes to tbe indictment nor uses language to show a conviction of tbe offense charged therein. S. v. Shew, 194 N. C., 690, 140 S. E., 621. It is entirely consistent with tbe defendant’s contention tbat tbe receipt of tbe property was lawful. S. v. Parker, 152 N. C., 790, 67 S. E., 35. “Receiving,” without more, is not a crime. C. S., 4250; S. v. Beal, 200 N. C., 90, 156 S. E., 140.

¶4 Tbe defendant is entitled to a venire de novo on tbe third count in tbe bill.

¶5 Reversed on second count.

¶6 Venire de novo on third count.

/218/nc/466 · .json · Public domain