State v. . Ray
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSchenck, J.
Upon the close of the evidence the appellant moved the court to-“quash the indictment” for the reason that he could not be tried in Pitt County, since all of the evidence tended to show that the property involved, if stolen, was stolen in Beaufort County, and if received by him, was received by him in Wake County. The motion was denied by the court, and such denial is made the basis of exceptive assignments of error. The assignments cannot be sustained.
In order to sustain a conviction it is not necessary for the State to prove that the crime occurred in the county where the indictment is…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. . MurphySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- State v. . JeffriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- State v. . AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- State v. . FerrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- State v. . WaltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- State v. McClainSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- State v. JarretteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- State v. FoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- State v. BranchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. . PayneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.