State v. Haywood
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
EXUM, Justice.
The principal question presented by this appeal, and the one over which the panel below disagreed, is whether the trial judge properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence. Upon careful examination of the record, we con- elude there is substantial evidence of each element of the offense of feloniously receiving stolen goods. Defendant’s motion was therefore properly denied.
The state’s evidence tended to show that in the early months of 1977 police officers in Greensboro were running an undercover operation for the purpose of recovering stolen…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. BatdorfSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- State v. BradySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. AllredSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. MurphyUtah Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- State v. LeggettCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.