State v. Elliott
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBabNhill, J.
The appellant excepts for that the court failed to charge the jury that in order to find the defendants guilty of possession or transportation of intoxicating liquors as charged, they must find defendants bad guilty knowledge of the presence of the liquor in the automobile. This exception must be sustained.
A person is presumed to intend tbe natural consequences of bis act. S. v. Phifer, 90 N.C. 721; S. v. Barbee, 92 N.C. 820; S. v. Davis, 214 N.C. 787, 1 S.E. 2d 104; Warren v. Insurance Co., 217 N.C. 705, 9 S.E. 2d 479. Hence, ordinarily, where a specific intent is not an element of tbe…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Warren v. Pilot Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- State v. . PhiferSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- State v. . BarbeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
3Cited by26 opinions
- State v. BooneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
- State v. WallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. FergusonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Carolina v. ParksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.