State v. Frazier

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 15, 1970

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1970-07-15

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1981

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“However, before the defendant’s guilt on either count may be inferred from the defendant’s unexplained possession of the money, the jury should have been required to find from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the money in the defendant’s possession was the identical money taken from the Steele home.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Muse, 54 N.C. App. 675 - State v. McNeill

Relies on State v. Jackson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1970-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Parker, J.

¶1 The court’s charge contained an instruction on the inference of guilt arising from possession of recently stolen *46property. In this connection the court failed to require the jury to find from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the watches found on defendant’s person and the clocks and other property found in his residence were the same watches, clocks and property stolen from the premises of Kinston Building Supply Company. The inference of guilt arising from the possession of recently stolen property does not apply until the identity of the property is established. State v. Jackson, 274 N.C. 594, 164 S.E. 2d 369.

¶2While there was ample evidence in this case from which the jury could have found the identity of the property involved, for the failure of the judge to require the State to carry the burden of showing the identity of the stolen property, the defendant is entitled to a

¶3New trial.

Campbell and Vaughn, JJ., concur.