{ "id": 8627716, "name": "STATE v. SETH MASSENGILL, ALTON BAREFOOT and ALTON JOHNSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Massengill", "decision_date": "1948-03-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "612", "last_page": "615", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "228 N.C. 612" } ], "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": "223 N. C., 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611124 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 S. E., 395", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N. C., 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628339 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "227 N. C., 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626247 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 N. C., 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629710 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S. E., 895", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617074 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0649-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 440, "char_count": 7781, "ocr_confidence": 0.476, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0172018921765372e-07, "percentile": 0.7449283722718969 }, "sha256": "938b1722b0f3a599ec7af8304f84cc213a2219810c878ce88fb01b62d2432450", "simhash": "1:ff433e12339d9cc4", "word_count": 1343 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:37.324265+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. SETH MASSENGILL, ALTON BAREFOOT and ALTON JOHNSON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "DeviN, J.\nThe defendants\u2019 motion for judgment as of nonsuit was properly denied. There was proof that the cotton described in the bill of indictment had been feloniously taken on the night of 6 November, 1947, and that it had been removed from the place where stored and carried away by truck. This, with the evidence of the identification of the tracks of those who removed it as having been made at the time by two of the defendants, a trail of loose cotton leading along the road to the home of the other defendant who owned a truck, the appearance of the three the next morning \u201cbefore good light,\u201d at a gin, nine miles away, with the truck laden with two bales of seed cotton in sheets, together with evidence of conflicting statements, would seem to afford some evidence, when considered in the light most favorable for the State, to implicate the defendants as the guilty parties. There was also evidence to negative the suggestion that the cotton asported belonged to the defendants. S. v. McLeod, 198 N. C., 649, 152 S. E., 895; S. v. King, 222 N. C., 239, 22 S. E. (2d), 445; S. v. Warren, ante, 22, 44 S. E. (2d), 207. \u201cWhen reasonable inferences may be drawn from them (the circumstances in evidence) pointing to defendant's guilt, it is a matter for the jury to decide whether the facts taken singly or in combination produce in their minds the requisite moral conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d S. v. Ewing, 227 N. C., 535, 42 S. E. (2d), 676; S. v. Lawrence, 196 N. C., 562, 146 S. E., 395.\nHowever, we think there was error in the instruction given by the court to the jury which entitles the defendants to a new trial. According to the record before us the only instruction given by the court in the application of the law to the evidence was that if the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt \u201cthat these defendants took N. L. Massengill\u2019s cotton away on the night of the 6th of November, and sold it and converted the proceeds thereof to their own use, it would be your duty to return verdict of guilty; if you are not so satisfied it would be your duty to return verdict of not guilty.\u201d The learned judge inadvertently omitted to charge that the taking must be felonious (S. v. Cameron, 223 N. C., 449, 27 S. E. (2d), 81), and his charge would also seem to require the jury to convict or acquit all three defendants indiscriminately, without distinction between them. The evidence against the three defendants was not identical as to each, and the jury should have been instructed they had the right, if they so found the facts to be, to convict or acquit one or more of them. The defendants were entitled to have the question of the guilt or innocence of each, on the evidence presented, submitted to the jury. .\n. New trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "DeviN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.", "Wellons <& Ganaday for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. SETH MASSENGILL, ALTON BAREFOOT and ALTON JOHNSON.\n(Filed 17 March, 1948.)\n1. Larceny \u00a7 7 \u2014 Circumstantial evidence of defendants\u2019 guilt of larceny held sufficient for jury.\nEvidence establishing the larceny of a quantity of cotton and evidence that tracks found at the scene corresponded to those of defendants, that there was a trail of loose cotton from the scene to the home of one of them, that the three defendants appeared the next morning \u201cbefore good light\u201d at a gin more distant than the one usually patronized by them, with a like quantity of cotton, where they immediately sold the cotton, together with evidence of conflicting statements made by them and evidence tending to show defendants did not own such quantity of cotton, is held sufficient to overrule defendants\u2019 motion for nonsuit in this prosecution fox-larceny.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 52a\u2014\nWhen circumstantial evidence raises a reasonable inference of defendants\u2019 guilt, it is for the jury to decide whether the facts taken singly or in combination produce in their minds the moral conviction of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.\n3. Larceny \u00a7 8\u2014\nAn instruction in a larceny prosecution which inadvertently fails to charge that the taking must be felonious, must be held for reversible error.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 53d\u2014\nWhere the evidence as against each of the several defendants charged is not identical, the trial court should submit the question of the guilt or innocence of each separately, and an instruction which requires the jury either to- convict all defendants or to acquit all, is reversible error.\nAppeal by defendants from Grady, Emergency Judge, at December Term, 1947, of JoHNSTON.\nNew trial.\nTbe defendants were indicted for larceny of 800 pounds of cotton, tbe property of N. L. Massengill.\nThere was evidence for tbe State tbat on tbe nigbt of 6 November, 1947, seed cotton, in quantity between 800 and 1,000 pounds, was stolen from tbe premises of tbe prosecuting witness. This cotton bad been put in 8 brown sheets, and placed under an open barn shelter, ten feet from the road. Tbe loss was discovered next morning about 8:30. Tbe evidence indicated tbat tbe cotton bad been carried from tbe shelter and loaded on a truck a short distance down tbe road. Tbe tracks of four men were visible on tbe ground between tbe shelter and tbe road, and there were bits of cotton along tbe road, which led to tbe home of defendant Barefoot. N. L. Massengill testified: \u201cI found cotton strewn from my house to Barefoot\u2019s bouse along tbe road.\u201d He also saw a lock of cotton near tbe edge of tbe road at Barefoot\u2019s driveway. Examination of tbe tracks by this witness and tbe officers showed one shoe bad left tbe impression in tbe sand of 13 to 19 tacks, and on defendant Johnson\u2019s shoe were found the same number of tacks, and these fitted and corresponded with the impressions on tbe ground exactly. Another track corresponded with tbe shoes of defendant Massengill and bis shoes were found to fit these tracks. Cotton bad also been stolen on tbe same nigbt from another resident of tbe community. Tbe three defendants lived within a few hundred yards of each other and about two miles from tbe prosecuting witness. Barefoot owned a truck. Defendants Massengill and Johnson were tenants of Carson Lee and Barefoot lived on bis wife\u2019s land.\nTbe evidence further showed tbat early on tbe morning of 7 November, about 6 a.m., \u201cbefore good light,\u201d defendant Barefoot drove bis truck loaded with two bales of seed cotton in sheets to the gin at Benson, nine miles from his home, accompanied by defendants Massengill and Johnson. This cotton was ginned and immediately sold in the name of Barefoot. When questioned about this by the officers, Barefoot first said it was his wife\u2019s cotton, and later admitted he had carried one bale for defendants Massengill and Johnson. The gin at Four Oaks, usually patronized, was only four miles away. The landlord of defendants Mas-sengill and Johnson testified that they had at that time picked but a small quantity of cotton, less than a bale, and Johnson\u2019s wife told the officers in his presence that all the cotton he had picked was in the house, and showed them in a room some 200 pounds. No notice had been given or permission obtained from the landlord to remove any cotton. A few days afterward defendant Johnson was asked by a witness, \u201cWhat did you boys steal that cotton for?\u201d and he replied, \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d\nThe defendants offered evidence in defense, denied taking the cotton, and claimed the cotton hauled on 7 November was their own. Each defendant, on cross-examination, admitted having been heretofore convicted of violation of law. Another person was originally indicted with these three defendants, but the evidence as to him was held insufficient.\nThe jury returned verdict of guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing sentence, the defendants named appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.\nWellons <& Ganaday for defendants." }, "file_name": "0612-01", "first_page_order": 658, "last_page_order": 661 }