Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930

State v. . Johnson

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided September 17, 1930 · Stacy

154 S.E. 730; 199 N.C. 429; 1930 N.C. LEXIS 136 (South Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

101 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. McElrath (N.C. 1988)
State v. Harris (N.C. 2007)
In re: West (N.C. Ct. App. 2026)
State v. Matias (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Butler (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Brooks (N.C. Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Artis (N.C. 1989)
State v. Blake (N.C. 1987)
State v. Hamlet (N.C. 1984)
State v. Stanley (N.C. 1984)
State v. Summitt (N.C. 1981)
State v. Jones (N.C. 1981)
State v. Lyles (N.C. 1979)
State v. Haddock (N.C. 1961)
State v. Horner (N.C. 1958)
State v. Butler (N.C. Ct. App. 2026)
State v. Taylor (N.C. 2021)
State v. Earnhardt (N.C. 1982)
State v. Yarborough (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
State v. Bailiff (N.C. Ct. App. 1968)
State v. King (N.C. 1965)
State v. Carver (N.C. 1963)
State v. Stephens (N.C. 1956)
Jenrette Transport Co. v. Atlantic Fire Insurance (N.C. 1952)
State v. . Kirkman (N.C. 1944)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Stacy, C. J.

The evidence does no more than raise a suspicion, somewhat strong perhaps, of the defendant’s guilt. It would require a repudiation of Tucker’s testimony and a guess to bridge the hiatus in the State’s case. Hence, under the principle announced in S. v. Battle, 198 *431 N. C., 379, 151 S. E., 927; S. v. Swinson, 196 N. C., 100, 144 S. E., 555; S. v. Montague, 195 N. C., 20, 141 S. E., 285; S. v. Prince, 182 N. C., 788, 108 S. E., 330; S. v. Rhodes, 111 N. C., 647, 15 S. E., 1038; S. v. Goodson, 107 N. C., 798, 12 S. E., 329; S. v. Brackville, 106 N. C., 701, 11 S. E., 284; S. v. Massey, 86 N. C., 660, and S. v. Vinson, 63 N. C., 335, tbe motion for nonsuit will be allowed.

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between evidence sufficient to carry a case to the jury, and a mere scintilla, which only raises a suspicion or possibility of the fact in issue. S. v. Bridgers, 172 N. C., 879, 89 S. E., 804; S. v. White, 89 N. C., 462. The general rule is that, if there be any evidence tending to prove the fact in issue, or which reasonably conduces to its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, the ease should be submitted to the jury. But as was said in the case where a darky was being prosecuted for the larceny of a pig, there must be more than the argument of the solicitor: “Gentlemen of the jury, there was a hog. Here is a negro. Take the case.” Wilson v. Lumber Co., 194 N. C., 374, 139 S. E., 760; Moore v. R. R., 173 N. C., 311, 92 S. E., 1.

Reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.