State v. Hall
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Defendant first argues that the trial judge erred in refusing to submit to the jury his requested instruction that he would not be guilty of larceny if he believed the property had been abandoned. Defendant is correct that property which has been abandoned by the owner cannot be the subject of larceny. See State v. Hathaway, 150 N.C. 798, 63 S.E. 892 (1909). The owner of personal property may relinquish his ownership by abandoning the property and thereafter title passes to the first person who next takes possession. The party relying on the defense of abandonment must…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. ChapmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. ParrishSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- State v. GreeneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. StanfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- State v. DeesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- State v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
- State v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004