State v. Johnson
N.C.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026State v. Butler N.C. Ct. App.
- 2026In re: West N.C. Ct. App.
- 2025State v. Swinson N.C. Ct. App.
- 2025State v. Williamson N.C. Ct. App.
- 2021State v. Blagg N.C.
- 2021State v. Taylor N.C.
- 2017State v. Battle N.C. App. Ct.
- 2007State v. Harris N.C.
- 2000State v. McNeill N.C. Ct. App.
- 1999State v. Brooks N.C. Ct. App.
Cites 11 casesshowing 8
- State v. Goodson
- State v. Rhodes
- Wilson v. Tilghman Lumber Co.
- State v. Montague
- State v. Swinson
- State v. Battle
- State v. Bridgers
- J. S. Moore & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
STATE v. ALVIN JOHNSON.
Attorneys
- Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.
- A. A. Bunn and J. M. Peace for defendant.
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 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.