Legal Opinion

State v. Helms

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 4, 1992No. 9126SC1241PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WALKER, Judge.

In his first assignment of error, defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charge of felonious larceny. Defendant contends that the State produced insufficient evidence that the stolen property had a fair market value over $400. We disagree.

In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss, the evidence presented at trial must be examined in the light most favorable to the State to determine if there is substantial evidence of every essential element of the offense. State v. McKinnon, 306 N.C. 288, 293 S.E.2d 118 (1982). Substantial evidence is…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. McKinnonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. State v. CornSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  3. State v. DeesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
  4. People v. RenfroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. State v. DaySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1972

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Baylor v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2009
  2. Shera v. N.C. State University Veterinary Teaching HospitalCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  3. Shera v. N.C. State Univ. Vet. Teac. Hos.North Carolina Industrial Commission · 2011
  4. State v. DockeryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API