State v. Rosser
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MORRIS, Chief Judge.
Defendants submit that the convictions should be set aside as inconsistent with the finding of not guilty of possession of marijuana. They allege that without the control element of possession it is impossible to meet the legal definition of manufacturing.
We find no merit in this contention. It is well established in North Carolina that a jury is not required to be consistent and that incongruity alone will not invalidate a verdict. State v. Brown, 36 N.C. App. 152, 242 S.E. 2d 890 (1978); State v. Shufford, 34 N.C. App. 115, 237 S.E. 2d 481, cert. denied 293 N.C. 592, 239…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- State v. CameronSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- State v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- State v. . SigmonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- State v. BestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- State v. . PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. Van McDougallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. TeelCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- State v. AlonzoCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
- State v. ApplewhiteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.