Legal Opinion

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 21, 1977No. 7726SC428PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendants contend that the court erred in failing to grant their motions for nonsuit on the charges of unlawful burning. Defendants correctly argue that the burden was on the State to prove (1) the fire, (2) that it was of incendiary origin, and (3) the connection of the accused with the crime. State v. Cuthrell, 233 N.C. 274, 63 S.E. 2d 549 (1951). They primarily argue that the State failed to show that the fire was of incendiary origin.

The State is, of course, entitled to every favorable inference that arises from the evidence, direct or circumstantial. The evidence was…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. State v. ConradSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
  2. State v. LowerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. State v. ButlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. State v. MOORE, IISupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  5. State v. CuthrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. HuntCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  2. State v. O'NEALCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  3. State v. SheetzCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  4. State v. CulpepperCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API