{
  "id": 11272195,
  "name": "STATE v. MOSES WHITE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. White",
  "decision_date": "1913-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "615",
  "last_page": "618",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "162 N.C. 615"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "156 N. C., 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 369,
    "char_count": 7219,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.431,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4329632945428046e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3420739973643251
    },
    "sha256": "da3f1aa40a2e61fe54d19e1d273a78dfbb696abcf459834ff09e73d0716beefc",
    "simhash": "1:9907d83d2a018454",
    "word_count": 1312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:37.824965+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. MOSES WHITE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "AlleN, J.\nThe objection that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction cannot be entertained when made, as in this case, for the first time after verdict. S. v. Leak, 156 N. C., 646. We have, however, examined the evidence, and think his Honor was justified in submitting it to the jury. ,\nIf the evidence of the State is accepted, the defendant knew that the prosecuting witness had money, and that she kept it in ber purse; be bad seen: tbe roll of bills, alleged to bav-e been, stolen, a few days before, and bad said to tbe witness tbat sbe bad a lot of money; be saw ber place tbe purse with tbe money in it in a drawer wben sbe left tbe room; be remained in tbe room for some time alone; no one else was seen to go to tbe room; after it was found tbat tbe money bad been stolen, a policeman went to see him, wben be denied taking tbe money, but said be would go to town and get Miss Annie (tbe prosecutrix) ber money; be told tbe policeman be bad no money on bis person except $1 or $1.25, and wben be was searched it was found tbat be bad a $5 bill and two $1 bills; be tben said tbe money belonged to bis wife, and on tbe next day said tbe two $1 bills belonged to bis wife, and tbat Mr. Ausley bad given bim tbe $5 bill.\nTbe exception to tbe charge cannot be sustained. His Honor told tbe jury tbat tbe money found on tbe defendant bad not been identified, and tbat there was no presumption of guilt, and be properly left to their consideration tbe circumstance of bis possession of some money in connection with the contradictory statements of tbe defendant.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "AlleN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Bich'ett and Assistant Attorney-General Galveri for the State.",
      "R. B. McLaughlin and W. D. Turner for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. MOSES WHITE.\n(Filed 16 April, 1913.)\n1. Evidence, Insufficiency of \u2014 Motion for New Trial After Verdict\u2014 Practice \u2014 Appeal and Error.\nWliere the sufficiency of the evidence is for the first time objected to after the verdict has been rendered, it comes too late upon, a motion for a new trial on that ground.\n2. Criminal Law \u2014 Larceny\u2014Evidence\u2014Recent Possession \u2014 Instructions \u2014 Questions for Jury.\nUpon a trial for larceny of money left in an office in a desk drawer, the evidence tended to show that the defendant had seen the prosecutor with the purse, containing $70 in $10 and $20 bills, and had remarked on the money the prosecutor had r that the defendant saw the prosecutor leave the purse in the drawer before going off for several hours, and when the prosecutor returned the purse was empty, and the defendant thereafter made contradictory statements of the amount of money he had on his person and where he had gotten it; that the defendant remained in the office after the prosecutor left, and no' one else was seen to go in while the prosecutor was away: Held, sufficient to be submitted to the jury upon, the question of defendant\u2019s guilt, and the judge properly instructed the jury that there was no presumption of guilt arising upon the doctrine of recent possession, the money not being identified, but it was for them to decide thereon under the evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from Cook, J., at October Term, 1912, of Ibedell.\nTbe defendant is indicted for tbe larceny of money, and from a judgment rendered on a verdict of guilty, be appealed.\nTbe principal witness for tbe State testified that on tbe day tbe money was missed sbe was a stenographer in a lawyer\u2019s office at Statesville, and that tbe.defendant was janitor of tbe building. On that morning sbe bad $70 in greenbacks, four $10 bills and six $5 bills, in a purse in a hand-bag. That she had counted the money about 11 o\u2019clock the' night before, and noticed that the purse was stuffed out with the bills the next morning. That the defendant was in the office painting the radiator, and was there when the witness left the office to go to dinner. She left no one in the office but the defendant. Just before leaving, she put the hand-bag containing the money in the drawer of her desk, and as she was closing the drawer the defendant looked around and saw her shut it. A few days prior thereto he saw her have this roll of bills., and remarked, \u201cMiss Annie, you got a lot of money.\u201d The witness was absent from the office until 2 o\u2019clock, and left again about 4 o\u2019clock. Upon her return to the office about 6, she began to make ready to go home, and opened the.drawer where she had put her bag and purse, and found that the position of the bag had been changed from the corner of the drawer, where she placed it, to the middle of the drawer, and that it was unfastened. She looked for the money, but it was gone.\nNo other persons than the defendant were seen in or around the office while the prosecuting witness was absent, by the occupants of the other offices on that floor.\nA policeman testified that he went to the defendant\u2019s house just after 6 o\u2019clock that afternoon and saw the defendant. ' He told the defendant that the prosecuting witness had lost $70. \u201cThereupon defendant said he did not have her money and had not taken it, but said, U will go to town with you and get Miss Annie her money.\u2019 Then he said, \u2018I will have to wait and see Mr. Ausley; he has my money on deposit.\u2019 Mr. Ausley was cashier of the Commercial,National Bank. Defendant said he did not have any money on him except $1 or $1.25. There was found on his person $7 in greenbacks, a $5 bill and two $1 bills. He then said it was his wife\u2019s money.\u201d\nAnother witness for the State testified that he saw the defendant the next day and told him that he would have to ^tell another tale about that money, and he then said $2 of it belonged to his wife, and Mr. Ausley. gave him the $5 on Saturday before. \u25a0 \u2022\nTbe court charged the jury the law applicable to cases of this kind, defining- larceny and what evidence was necessary to constitute the offense; that where property was stolen and was found in possession of a person, the law raises the presumption of guilt, if the property was'identified; and that the more recent the possession after the-larceny, the stronger the presumption. That the money found on the defendant\u2019s person would not raise a presumption of his guilt, because of its unidentifieation; (that the jury could take into consideration, in passing upon the guilt of the defendant,) all the evidence in the ease; the opportunity the defendant had to take the money, (the fact that some money was found upon his person unidentified) ; the statement made by him; and also charged the jury that the burden was upon the State to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt from all the evidence, and if not so satisfied, it would be the duty of the jury to acquit the defendant.\nAfter the verdict the defendant moved for a new trial, because\u2014\n(1) There was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury to justify a verdict.\n(2) Because his Honor charged the jury that the jury should take into consideration all the evidence in the case; (the fact that money was found upon his person unidentified) ; the opportunity that he had to take the money; his statement to the policeman, was evidence for the jury to consider before passing upon the defendant\u2019s guilt.\nMotion overruled, and the defendant excepted.\nAttorney-General Bich'ett and Assistant Attorney-General Galveri for the State.\nR. B. McLaughlin and W. D. Turner for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0615-01",
  "first_page_order": 659,
  "last_page_order": 662
}