Legal Opinion

State v. Speckman

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 20, 1988No. 8826SC394PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to require the State to elect between the charges of embezzlement and obtaining property by false pretense.

In order to convict a defendant of embezzlement under G.S. § 14-90, the State must prove three distinct elements: (1) that the defendant, being more than sixteen years of age, acted as an agent or fiduciary for his principal, (2) that he received money or valuable property of his principal in the course of his employment and by virtue of his fiduciary relationship, and (3) that he fraudulently or knowingly and…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. White v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  2. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  3. State v. CroninSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  4. State v. McElrathSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  5. State v. SummrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. SpeckmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API