Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 N.C. App. 314

208 S.E.2d 870

State v. Ledford

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 16, 1974

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1974-10-16

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“beyond the realm of suspicion and conjecture.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 94 N.C. App. 270 - State v. Thorpe

Relies on State v. Cutler · State v. McNeil · State v. Vincent

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-10-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2003

8 state decisions

401974198019902000decided

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 →

PARKER, Judge.

¶1 Defendant assigns error to the denial of his motion for non-suit made at the close of all of the evidence. It is familiar learning that upon a motion for judgment as of nonsuit in a criminal action, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State and the State given the benefit of every reasonable inference arising therefrom. State v. McNeil, 280 N.C. 159, 185 S.E. 2d 156 (1971) ; State v. Vincent, 278 N.C. 63, 178 S.E. 2d 608 (1971). The question for the court is whether, when all of the evidence is so considered, there is substantial evidence to support a finding both that the offense charged has been committed and that the defendant committed it. “If, when the evidence is so considered, it is sufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the offense or the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of it, the motion for nonsuit should be allowed.” State v. Cutler, 271 N.C. 379, 156 S.E. 2d 679 (1967). This is true even though the suspicion aroused by the evidence is strong. State v. Chavis, 270 N.C. 306, 154 S.E. 2d 340 (1967).

¶2 Applying the foregoing principles to the evidence in this case, we find it sufficient to raise a strong suspicion of defendant’s guilt but not sufficient to take that issue beyond the realm of suspicion and conjecture. Defendant was seen in an area where shortly thereafter, the contraband material was found, but it was a public place and other persons were also observed in the immediate area. Defendant was observed apparently to pick up objects from the ground, but there was no evidence as to what these objects were and obviously they could not have been the identical objects which the officers later discovered and found to be contraband. Defendant ran, but his flight under *317 the circumstances here disclosed does no more than merely add to the suspicion of his guilt and furnishes no substantial evidence thereof.

¶3 In our opinion the motion for nonsuit should have been allowed. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is

¶4 Reversed.

Judges Britt and Hedrick concur.
/23/ncapp/314 · .json · Public domain