Legal Opinion

State v. Hart

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 29, 1972No. 7212SC135PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAHAM, Judge.

Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he purchased the clothes or actually received them into his possession. Even if the evidence be interpreted as insufficient to show that defendant actually received possession of the goods in question, we think it clearly sufficient to show that he constructively received the goods. Constructive receipt is sufficient to constitute “receiving” within the meaning of G.S. 14-71. 6 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Receiving Stolen Goods, § 1, p. 607. The evidence here was that defendant directed a person at his home to take the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. . OxendineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  2. State v. . StroudSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
  3. State v. . MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. WoleryOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  2. State v. FearingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  3. State v. HaywoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  4. State v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  5. State v. AllenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

5 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