Legal Opinion

State v. . Rodgers

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 13, 1939PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The appeal presents no serious exceptive assignment of error so far as concerns the trial on the first and fourth counts in the bill.

Tbe defendants by their motion to nonsuit on the second count challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant a verdict of burglary in the second degree. C. S., 4232. They say there was no “breaking” such .as is required in burglary. S. v. Morris, 215 N. C., 552, 2 S. E. (2d), 554. The evidence was properly submitted to the jury on the theory of a constructive breaking under authority of S. v. Foster, 129 N. C., 704, 40 S. E., 209. There it was said: “We…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. . BealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. State v. . WhitesideSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  3. State v. . MorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  4. State v. Foster.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. NelsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. State v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API