State v. . Bridgers
State v. . Bridgers
Opinion of the Court
We do not think there was evidence sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant. There was no positive testimony that any goods were taken from the prosecutor; indeed the witness expressly testified that he did not know wdiether he had lost any mule shoes at all, or how many he had before the defendant entered his store, or how many he had afterwards. The testimony of this witness that, he suspected the defendant is of no force. The jury must be governed by the evidence of the facts upon which the suspicion was based, and not by the suspicion itself. A conjecture or a suspicion might arise unfavorable to the defendant, but evidence only sufficient for this purpose is not legal evidence. Unless this evidence, purely circumstantial in its nature, was of such character as to warrant a reasonable conclusion of the guilt of tb,e defendant, it ought not to have been submitted - to the jury. State v. Bruce, 106 N. C., 792. The defendant attempted to account for his possession of the shoes. Tf his statement had been contradicted there would have been a circumstance against him, but the State offered a witness for the purpose who failed to contradict him. Indeed, his testimony left it not unreasonable to presume that the defendant might have procured them at another place.. Taking the testimony as a whole, it was only sufficient to raise a conjecture or suspicion, and did not reach the dignity of legal evidence. There must be a New Trial.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- State v. Ben. Bridgers
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Larceny — Sufficiency of Evidence. 1. Evidence which only raises a conjecture or suspicion of the gnilt of one charged with an offence, but does not warrant a reasonable conclusion of his guilt, ought not to be submitted to the jury. 2. Where, on a trial for larceny, the prosecuting witness testified that, on liis refusing to sell the defendant any mule shoes on credit, defendant sat down on a keg containing some, and after rattling the shoes for a while with his hand went out of the store with his right hand in his pocket; that he, the witness, suspected defendant of taking some shoes, but did not know whether any were taken or not; and defendant testified that he bought miule shoes which were soon afterwards found in Ms possession from one M., who testified that he did. not remember selling them to the defendant, but might have done so, as there were many people about his store that day: Held, that the evidence raised only a conjecture or suspicion of defendant’s gnilt, and did not reach the dignity of legal evidence.