Legal Opinion

State v. . Best

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 23, 1931PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Conceding that the recent possession of the stolen property was a circumstance tending tó show the larceny thereof by the defendants (S. v. Hullen, 133 N. C., 656, 45 S. E., 513), or that it raised a presumption of fact (S. v. Anderson, 162 N. C., 571, 77 S. E., 238), or a presumption of law (S. v. Graves, 72 N. C., 482), of such guilt, nevertheless, it is the holding with us that the inference or presumption arising from the recent possession of stolen property, without more, does not extend to the statutory charge (C. S., 4250) of receiving-said property knowing it to have been feloniously…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. . GravesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
  2. State v. Hullen.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  3. State v. Adams.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  4. State v. AndersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. . WeinsteinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  2. State v. . OxendineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  3. State v. ScogginSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  4. State v. NeillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  5. State v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

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

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

Powered by the Exa API