{
  "id": 8552098,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EUGENE PHILLIP WATSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Watson",
  "decision_date": "1970-12-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 706SC642",
  "first_page": "168",
  "last_page": "170",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 168"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 3984,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4292197538457575e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6509282973640548
    },
    "sha256": "38fe430fe2bffa2e7c49d45841d2a5c4d23778d66310e9b72888a3b75581a094",
    "simhash": "1:9bf89023f2dcdccb",
    "word_count": 663
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:53.441044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EUGENE PHILLIP WATSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the denial of his motion for nonsuit. Evidence for the State, in part, tended to show the following: Defendant formerly worked for W. M. Odom, owner and operator of the Red and White Supermarket in Ahoskie. Upon opening his store on the morning of 30 June 1970, Odom found that a glass in the rear door had been broken and the latch lifted. He found that about $40.00 in coins was missing from his cash register. Among other coins missing were rolls of quarters, dimes and nickels. At about 4:30 a.m. on 30 June 1970 defendant approached the attendant at a service station located about one-half mile from the Red and White Supermarket. He asked the attendant, Dunning, to give him paper money for some coins. Dunning did so and received one roll of dimes and two rolls of nickels, one roll of quarters and five dollars worth of loose change for which he gave defendant $24.00 in paper currency. State\u2019s Exhibit \u201cA,\u201d a roll of nickels, was identified as being one of the rolls of coins which defendant exchanged. The witness Odom was recalled and testified that Exhibit \u201cA\u201d was_one of the rolls of nickels which was in his store. When considered in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to withstand defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit. The thrust of defendant\u2019s argument is directed at the weakness of the State\u2019s evidence in identifying the coins in the defendant\u2019s possession as being the identical coins stolen. The witness Odom, when questioned on direct examination with reference to Exhibit \u201cA,\u201d testified, \u201cThis is the roll that was in my store.\u201d He testified that he could identify the roll \u201cbecause the 70 was blotted out and there is the June 29th date on it and the 1970 is blurred.\u201d It is true that this witness\u2019 positive identification on direct examination was undoubtedly weakened on cross-examination by defendant\u2019s counsel. Contradictions in the State\u2019s evidence, however, are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant nonsuit. Only the evidence favorable to the State will be considered. 2 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 104, pp. 649, 650.\nThe defendant also contends that the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury with reference to the inference arising from the possession of recently stolen goods. We disagree. The court\u2019s charge when considered in context, made it clear that the inference arising from the possession of recently stolen goods did not apply unless the jury found from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the coins possessed by defendant were the same coins stolen from Odom\u2019s store. In the entire trial we find no error.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Charles M. Hensey and Staff Attorney Richard N. League for the State.",
      "Jones, Jones and Jones by Carter W. Jones and L. Bennett Gram, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EUGENE PHILLIP WATSON\nNo. 706SC642\n(Filed 16 December 1970)\n1. Larceny \u00a7 7\u2014 larceny of coins \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn a prosecution charging defendant with the larceny of $40 in coins from a supermarket, the State\u2019s evidence, which included testimony by the supermarket owner that a roll of nickels found in defendant\u2019s possession was identical to the coins stolen, was sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt, even though the owner\u2019s positive identification of the coins on direct examination was weakened on cross-examination.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 104\u2014 motion of nonsuit \u2014 contradictions in the State\u2019s evidence\nContradictions in the State\u2019s evidence are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant nonsuit.\nAppeal by defendant from Copeland, Special Superior Court Judge, July 1970 Term, Hertford Superior Court.\nDefendant was convicted of larceny of property of the value of not more than $200.00. From judgment imposing an active prison sentence for a term of two (2) years, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Charles M. Hensey and Staff Attorney Richard N. League for the State.\nJones, Jones and Jones by Carter W. Jones and L. Bennett Gram, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0168-01",
  "first_page_order": 192,
  "last_page_order": 194
}