State v. . Stiwinter
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Stacy, 0. J.
'Without undertaking to state the facts, which are largely circumstantial in character, it is enough to say the evidence offered by the prosecution is of sufficient probative value or force to sustain a conviction. The defendants did not testify.
Speaking to the effect of -circumstantial evidence, the court instructed the jury that “the law does not require the State to offer evidence of facts which if established beyond a reasonable doubt will allow the jury to infer the act of intercourse.” We are constrained to believe that this instruction has been erroneously reported, but it…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- State v. Wilcox.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- State v. . GoodsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- State v. . HorneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- State v. Martha Matthews.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
- State v. . MeltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- State v. StephensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. . HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- State v. HortonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- State v. SimpsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.