State v. Epps

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Burton

    158 S.E.2d 883 (N.C. 1968)   Cited 13 times
    In State v. Burton, 272 N.C. 687, 158 S.E.2d 883, evidence of possession by defendant some three days after a safe had been forced open of tools which had been used to open the safe was held insufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant's guilt of safe cracking.

    re than a suspicion or conjecture that defendant was present or actively participated in the offense. "From S. v. Goodson, 107 N.C. 798, 12 S.E. 329, where the evidence was held insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder, we quote the apt language of Chief Justice Merrimon: `Thus full summary of the incriminating facts, taken in the strongest view of them adverse to the prisoner, excite suspicion in the just mind that he is guilty, but such view is far from excluding the rational conclusion that some other unknown person may be the guilty party.' S. v. Montague, 195 N.C. 20, 141 S.E. 285; S. v. Woodell, 211 N.C. 635, 191 S.E. 334; S. v. Madden, 212 N.C. 56, 192 S.E. 859; S. v. English, 214 N.C. 564, 199 S.E. 920. `It all comes to this, that there must be legal evidence of the fact in issue and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it.' S. v. Prince, 182 N.C. 788, 108 S.E. 330; S. v. Patterson, 78 N.C. 470; S. v. Martin, 191 N.C. 404, 132 S.E. 16; S. v. Epps, 214 N.C. 577, 200 S.E. 20; S. v. Norggins, 215 N.C. 220, 1 S.E.2d 533. "The motion for nonsuit should have been allowed, and the judgment is reversed."

  2. State v. Oxendine

    27 S.E.2d 814 (N.C. 1943)   Cited 19 times
    Receiving stolen goods case

    They may be sufficient to excite suspicion, somewhat strong perhaps, but they apparently leave too much to surmise or assumption to carry the cases to the jury. S. v. Epps, 214 N.C. 577, 200 S.E. 20; S. v. Jones, 215 N.C. 660, 2 S.E.2d 867. The evidence must do more than raise a suspicion or conjecture in regard to the essential facts of the case.

  3. State v. Shu

    11 S.E.2d 155 (N.C. 1940)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Shu, 218 N.C. 387, 11 S.E.2d 155, evidence of customary use and possession of an automobile used in commission of a crime was held insufficient to be submitted to the jury, as it raised no more than a suspicion or conjecture that defendant was present or actually participated in the crime.

    " S. v. Montague, 195 N.C. 21, 141 S.E. 285; S. v. Woodell, 211 N.C. 635, 191 S.E. 334; S. v. Madden, 212 N.C. 56, 192 S.E. 859; S. v. English, 214 N.C. 564, 199 S.E. 920. "It all comes to this, that there must be legal evidence of the fact in issue and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it." S. v. Prince, 182 N.C. 788, 108 S.E. 330; S. v. Patterson, 78 N.C. 470; S. v. Martin, 191 N.C. 404, 132 S.E. 16; S. v. Epps, 214 N.C. 577, 200 S.E. 20; S. v. Norggins, 215 N.C. 220, 1 S.E.2d 533. The motion for nonsuit should have been allowed, and the judgment is