{
  "id": 8621191,
  "name": "STATE v. HOWARD CANNON, AVERY WINSTON, FRANK SAPP, OSCAR PAGE, JAMES McNEILL, and C. E. REECE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cannon",
  "decision_date": "1940-11-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "466",
  "last_page": "468",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "218 N.C. 466"
    }
  ],
  "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 S. E., 140",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616542
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 S. E., 35",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 790",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273104
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0790-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S. E., 621",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 690",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616362
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0690-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 S. E., 249",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628274
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S. E., 891",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 251",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602171
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0251-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 S. E., 920",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N. C., 564",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631973
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0564-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 S. E., 722",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 786",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659192
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0786-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N. C., 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698345
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0482-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 S. E., 238",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 N. C., 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272041
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/162/0571-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S. E., 535",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622786
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0009-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 325,
    "char_count": 4465,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6906075024252705e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8275513360045316
    },
    "sha256": "7a2bc299346dc82ecd2d44f665707fac5f904e375f683613b47d6295e1d00112",
    "simhash": "1:bdf4e090622a0925",
    "word_count": 791
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:12.547739+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HOWARD CANNON, AVERY WINSTON, FRANK SAPP, OSCAR PAGE, JAMES McNEILL, and C. E. REECE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe record is barren of any evidence of larceny on the part of Howard Cannon, unless the possession by him of the goods on the day following their taking is evidence of such guilt. While it is very generally held that the recent possession of stolen property is a circumstance tending to show the larceny thereof by the possessor (S. v. Best, 202 N. C., 9, 161 S. E., 535), or that it raises a presumption of fact (S. v. Anderson, 162 N. C., 571, 77 S. E., 238), or a presumption of law (S. v. Graves, 72 N. C., 482), of such guilt, still it would seem that on the present record no such presumption should prevail because the State\u2019s evidence shows the larceny to have been committed by others, and fails to connect the defendant in any way with the felonious taking. S. v. Lippard, 183 N. C., 786, 111 S. E., 722; S. v. Anderson, supra. The larceny was completed when the cigarettes were taken from the boxcar and secreted in South Park. The thief himself, a witness for the State, testified that he did not know Mr. Cannon and had never seen him prior to tbe day of trial when be was pointed out to bim in tbe courtroom.\nWe are constrained to bold, therefore, tbat tbe demurrer to tbe evidence on tbe count of larceny should have been sustained. S. v. English, 214 N. C., 564, 199 S. E., 920.\nTbe demurrer to tbe evidence was properly overruled as to tbe third count. But tbe verdict on this count is insufficient to support tbe judgment. S. v. Lassiter, 208 N. C., 251, 179 S. E., 891; S. v. Barbee, 197 N. C., 248, 148 S. E., 249. It neither alludes to tbe indictment nor uses language to show a conviction of tbe offense charged therein. S. v. Shew, 194 N. C., 690, 140 S. E., 621. It is entirely consistent with tbe defendant\u2019s contention tbat tbe receipt of tbe property was lawful. S. v. Parker, 152 N. C., 790, 67 S. E., 35. \u201cReceiving,\u201d without more, is not a crime. C. S., 4250; S. v. Beal, 200 N. C., 90, 156 S. E., 140.\nTbe defendant is entitled to a venire de novo on tbe third count in tbe bill.\nReversed on second count.\nVenire de novo on third count.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.",
      "Clyde A. Douglass, Bilis Nassif, and W. H. Yarborough, Sr., for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HOWARD CANNON, AVERY WINSTON, FRANK SAPP, OSCAR PAGE, JAMES McNEILL, and C. E. REECE.\n(Filed 7 November, 1940.)\n1. Larceny \u00a7 7\u2014\nWhere the State\u2019s evidence tends to show the actual theft of the goods in question by others, and fails to connect defendant therewith in any manner until after the goods had been asported, the presumption arising from defendant\u2019s possession of the goods a short time thereafter is insufficient to justify the submission of the question of defendant\u2019s guilt of larceny to the jury.\n2. Receiving Stolen Goods \u00a7 8\u2014\nA verdict of guilty of \u201creceiving\u201d is insufficient to support judgment for receiving stolen goods with knowledge that they had been stolen, C. S., 4250, \u201creceiving,\u201d without more, not being a crime.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 83\u2014\nWhere the form of the verdict is insufficient to support the judgment, a venire de novo will be ordered.\nAppeal by defendant Howard Cannon from Williams, J., at March Term, 1940, of Wake.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging tbe defendant Howard Cannon, and others, in three counts, (1) with breaking and entering a boxcar and building, (2) with the larceny of two cases of Phillip Morris cigarettes, of the value of $137.00, the property of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, and (3) with receiving said cigarettes, etc., knowing them to have been feloniously stolen or taken in violation of C. S., 4250.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tends to show that on 24 January, 1940, James McNeill and Frank Sapp, Negroes, stole some cigarettes from a boxcar of the Seaboard Air Line Railway, hid them in South Park, city of Raleigh, and on the following day sold them to C. E. Reece, who in turn sold them to his brother-in-law, Howard Cannon. Reece used Cannon\u2019s car in going after the cigarettes. Cannon admitted receiving the cigarettes from Reece, but denied any knowledge of their having been stolen.\nThe defendant\u2019s demurrer to the evidence was sustained on the first count and overruled as to the second and third counts in the bill of indictment.\nYerdiet: \u201cGuilty of larceny and receiving.\u201d\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the State\u2019s Prison from not less than three nor more than five years.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.\nClyde A. Douglass, Bilis Nassif, and W. H. Yarborough, Sr., for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0466-01",
  "first_page_order": 534,
  "last_page_order": 536
}