State v. Carr
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BALEY, Judge.
Defendants contend that since the indictments named William Brad Crowell as the owner of the stolen car, while the evidence showed that it was registered in the name of “Crowell’s T.V.,” there was a fatal variance between indictment and proof. It is true that an indictment must correctly specify the owner of the stolen property. State v. Jessup, 279 N.C. 108, 181 S.E. 2d 594; State v. Law, 227 N.C. 103, 40 S.E. 2d 699; State v. Jenkins, 78 N.C. 478. But the person named in the indictment may be either the person having a “general interest” in the stolen property—that is, the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- State v. DuboiseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- State v. BellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. ScottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
- State v. Gayton-BarbosaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
- State v. BostCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. ForteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.