Legal Opinion

State v. Cohoon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 11, 1934PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeogdeN, J.

In general terms embezzlement “is the fraudulent conversion of property by one who has lawfully acquired possession of it for the use and benefit of the owner.” The mere act of converting or appropriating property to one’s own use is not sufficient to constitute the offense. In order to convict, the State must not only offer evidence of appropriation, but it must go farther and offer evidence that such act was done with a fraudulent purpose or corrupt intent. This idea was expressed in S. v. McDonald, 133 N. C., 680, 45 S. E., 582, in these words: “We think, therefore, that the conversion of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. McDonald.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  2. State v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  3. Worth Co. v. International Sugar Feed No. 2 Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  4. State v. . MacESupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  5. State v. . FalknerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State v. HortonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
  2. State v. SimmonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. State v. TilleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. State v. KornegaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  5. State v. HovisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API