Legal Opinion

State v. Ross

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 22, 1967No. 577PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

The crime of embezzlement, unknown to the common law, was created and is defined by statute. State v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 658, 111 S.E. 2d 901, and cases cited.

Statutes creating criminal offenses must be strictly construed. 4 Strong, N. C. Index, Statutes § 5, p. 179. This rule has been applied with vigor in the construction of our embezzlement statute. State v. Whitehurst, 212 N.C. 300, 193 S.E. 657; State v. Eurell, 220 N.C. 519, 17 S.E. 2d 669; State v. Blair, 227 N.C. 70, 40 S.E. 2d 460.

In State v. Whitehurst, supra, Stacy, C.J., set forth the history, including the successive amendments,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. State v. FennerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  3. State v. . WhitehurstSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  4. State v. WhitehurstSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  5. State v. . EurellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Matter of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Ridge Community Investors, Inc. v. BerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. State v. SpencerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  4. State v. HagemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. State v. AgnewSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978

30 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