State v. Tilley

The defendant insists primarily that he is entitled to a reversal for insufficiency of testimony. This claim is insupportable. The evidence of the State’s witness Tilley was amply sufficient to carry the *249case to tbe jury on both counts of the indictment. S. v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 76 S.E. 2d 42.

This is true notwithstanding Tilley claimed to be an accomplice of the defendant, and notwithstanding Bowman, another supposed accomplice, was custodian of the warehouse in which the goods were stored by their owner. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that although the jury should receive and…