{
  "id": 8695938,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES GREEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Green",
  "decision_date": "1879-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "560",
  "last_page": "562",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "81 N.C. 560"
    }
  ],
  "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": "65 N. C., 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1955332
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/65/0305-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 3574,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.32997336348278e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8735013122386672
    },
    "sha256": "9d8687239ca4cbb596156d41a5826b114e8b6c1f3f92c3b6386b6fe8dfaf2b38",
    "simhash": "1:e2617322a858d52e",
    "word_count": 632
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:00:55.261653+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JAMES GREEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, C. J.\nThe defendant has been twice convicted under an indictment containing two counts, one for the larceny of one dollar in money, and the other for feloniously receiving the like sum, once in the inferior, and again on his appeal in the superior court of Pitt county. The judgment in each court was the same, that the defendant be confined in the state prison for three years.\nThe only exception taken and presented in the appeal is to the refusal of the court to charge that the evidence failed to prove such asportation of the money as is necessary to-constitute larceny.\nWe think the judge was correct in declining to give the instruction. \u201cA bare removal from the place in which the-thief found the goods, though he does not make off with them,\u201d says Mr. Justice Blackstone, defining an element in larceny, \u201c is a sufficient asportation or carrying away.\u201d 4 Blackstone Com, 231.\nAccordingly it has been held that where one broke open a chest in the dwelling house of another, nobody being ithere, and took out the goods and laid them on the floor of \u25a0the same room, and is then apprehended, or where one drew \u25a0out a book from the inside of the prosecutor\u2019s pocket, an inch above its top, and then, on a movement of the prosecutor's hands, let the book drop and it fell back into the pocket, or where a ear ring was separated from the ear of a lady in which it was worn, and it fell and lodged in the \u25a0curls nf her hair, \u2014 in all these cases the asportation was sufficient. 1 Hale, 508. And so have been the adjudications in this state.\n\u201cIt is a sufficient carrying away to constitute the offence of larceny,\u201d says Settle, J., \u201c if the goods are removed from vthe place where they were, and the felon has for an instant the entire and absolute possession of them.\u201d State v. Jackson, 65 N. C., 305. The .least removal of an article from the actual or constructive possession of the owner, so as to be under-the control of the felon,\u201d says Dick, J., \u201cwill be a sufficient asportation. State v. Jones, Ibid., 395.\nThe case before us clearly comes within the principle of \u25a0these adjudications. The defendant had removed the drawer from the safe and was handling the money found in it at the time of his detection, and the act of stealing was \u25a0complete.\nPer Curiam. No error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel in this court for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES GREEN.\nLarceny \u2014 Asportation.\nThe removal from a safe of a drawer containing money, and a handling of the same, in the drawer, at the door of the safe, is a sufficient carrying away to constitute the element of aspostation in the crime of larceny.\n{State v. Jackson, 65 N. 0., 305; State v. Jones, Ibid., 395, cited and approved.)\nINDICTMENT for Larceny, tried at Spring Term, 1879, of Pitt Superior Court, before Seymour, J.\nThe evidence was that the defendant who was in the employ of the prosecuting witness took the key of the witness\u2019 safe from his pocket one morning before the witness had dressed, and went to his office, unlocked the safe, took therefrom a drawer containing money, completely removing the-same from the safe, and was handling the money when the witness detected him ; but the money was not removed from the drawer. Thereupon the defendant\u2019s counsel requested the court to charge the jury that there was no evidence of an asportavit. The court declined, but instructed the jury that if the defendant removed the drawer from the safe with the felonious intent to steal the money in such drawer, he was guilty. Defendant excepted. Verdict of guilty, judgment, appeal by defendant.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel in this court for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0560-01",
  "first_page_order": 576,
  "last_page_order": 578
}