Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Hankins

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 4, 1983No. 825SC1347Published

1Dissent

Judge Hill

dissenting.

I dissent. On review the State is entitled to all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. See State v. McKinney, 288 N.C. 113, 215 S.E. 2d 578 (1975). On a charge of burglary the intent to commit a felony must exist at the time of entry, and it is no defense that the defendant abandoned the intent after entering. State v. Wilson, 293 N.C. 47, 235 S.E. 2d 219 (1977).

I believe there is sufficient evidence from which the jury could draw an inference that the defendant intended to gratify his passions when he entered the house, or to commit larceny, albeit…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. McKinneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. State v. SimpsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  3. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  4. State v. RedmondCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API