State v. Case

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Bishop

    4 S.E. 357 (N.C. 1887)   Cited 8 times

    Every act of the defendant in respect to the alleged crime, and every circumstance calculated to throw light upon it and aid the jury in coming to a correct conclusion, is competent. S. v. Case, 93 N.C. 545, and cases cited; Mason v. McCormick, 85 N.C. 226; S. v. Lemon, 92 N.C. 790. This disposes of the first exception.

  2. State v. Manly

    95 N.C. 661 (N.C. 1886)   Cited 4 times

    No counsel, for the defendant. ( State v. Eliason, 91 N.C. 564; State v. Case, 93 N.C. 545; State v. McNeill, 75 N.C. 15; State v, Jackson, 82 N.C. 565; In re Brittain, 93 N.C. 587, cited and approved). The facts are stated in the opinion.

  3. State v. Lindsey

    213 S.E.2d 434 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    The activity of defendant Wells in attempting to embrace a juror through Ray Malpass was obviously relevant to show his consciousness of guilt or his unwillingness to rely on the soundness of his case. See State v. Case, 93 N.C. 545 (1885). See also Commonwealth v. White, 447 Pa. 331, 290 A.2d 246 (1972) and Gassenheimer v. United States, 26 App. D.C. 432 (1906).

  4. Rogers v. State

    19 Okla. Crim. 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 1921)   Cited 7 times
    In State v. Rogers, 148 La. 653, 87 So. 504 (1921), the State appealed the judgment of the trial court sustaining a demurrer to the affidavit by which the defendant was being prosecuted.

    Under such circumstances, where an attempt is made to suppress the accusation and permit the accused to escape, it creates another presumption that the liquor is kept for illegal purposes. Lawson on Presumptive Evidence, 356; State v. Crowder, 41 Kan. 101; State v. Case, 93 N.C. 545, 53 Am. R. 471; Fanning v. State, 14 Mo. 386. Plaintiff in error urges in his brief that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury upon the question of unlawful intent.

  5. People v. Velarde

    45 Cal.App. 520 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)   Cited 19 times
    In People v. Velarde, 45 Cal.App. 520, 524 [ 188 P. 59], the following appears: "Thus there is vested in every county police power by direct grant under the Constitution.

    It is not to be supposed that one who is innocent, and conscious of the fact, will resort to bribery. ( State v. Case, 93 N.C. 545, [53 Am. Rep. 471]; Turpin v. Commonwealth, 140 Ky. 294, [140 Am. St. Rep. 378, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 794, 130 S.W. 1086]; 16 C. J. 556.) [13] It was not necessary that the information should specifically allege that the offense was committed outside of an incorporated city or town.