Legal Opinion

State v. . Spaulding

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 16, 1936PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Touching the question of scienter, the court instructed the jury as follows: “It is necessary to establish either actual or implied knowledge. . . . This knowledge that the goods were stolen may be actual or it may be implied. . . . The test is as to the knowledge, actual or implied.”

This instruction, it would seem, was prejudicial to the defendant. S. v. Morrison, 207 N. C., 804, 178 S. E., 562. True, the jury is at liberty to infer guilty knowledge from circumstances justifying the inference, S. v. Wilson, 176 N. C., 751, 97 S. E., 496, but the knowledge inferred must be such as to bring it…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. . WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  2. State v. . CavenessSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  3. State v. . DailSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. State v. . StathosSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  5. State v. . BarbeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. . OxendineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  2. State v. ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  3. State v. . MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  4. State v. . ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  5. State v. St. ClairCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API