State v. . Baker
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT, charging the defendant with larceny and receiving stolen goods, tried before his Honor, Judge Clarice, at Fall-Term, 1873, of the Superior Court of Wilson county. The jury found the defendant guilty generally, on the trial of the indictment, which contained two counts : one for stealing, and the other for receiving stolen goods.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT, charging the defendant with larceny and receiving stolen goods, tried before his Honor, Judge Clarice, at Fall-Term, 1873, of the Superior Court of Wilson county. The jury found the defendant guilty generally, on the trial of the indictment, which contained two counts : one for stealing, and the other for receiving stolen goods. Defendant moved for an arrest of judgment, because the verdict was to© general, it being “ inconsistent and absurd ” to find the d'e-fendant guilty of stealing certain property, and at the same time guilty of receiving such property, knowing it to be…
1Opinion of the CourtPeaesoN, C. J.
On the argument it was conceded by the-counsel of the defendant, that State v, Speight, 69 N. C. Rep. 72, was decisive against him. It is there said, “ It may be that the prisoner stole the spirits of turpentine, or received the spirits of turpentine, knowing it to have been stolen. The grade of offence and the punishment are the same, and the j oinder of the two counts is allowed Toy statute, because of the difficuty of proving whether the prisoner stole the thing himself or got some one else to steal it for him, or received it from some person, knowing it to have been stolen pand it is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. . SpeightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1873
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. . LawrenceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
- State v. MeshawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- State v. . MorrisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- State v. . CarterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893