Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY CANDLER and MIKE MASON
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1975-04-02
Citations: 25 N.C. App. 318
Docket Number: No. 744SC1092
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY CANDLER and MIKE MASON
Judges: Judges Hedrick and Clark concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY CANDLER and MIKE MASON
No. 744SC1092
(Filed 2 April 1975)
1. Animals § 7; Property § 4— wanton damage of realty — needlessly killing animals
The State’s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution of defendants for wantonly damaging real property in violation of G.S. 14-127 and of needlessly killing animals in violation of G.S. 14-360.
2. Criminal Law § 112— circumstantial evidence — necessity for request for instructions
The court is not required to instruct the jury as to how it should view circumstantial evidence absent a request for special instructions.
Appeal by defendants from Lanier, Judge. Judgments entered 22 August 1974 in Superior Court, Duplin County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 March 1975.
Defendants were each convicted of willfully and wantonly damaging real property in violation of G.S. 14-127, and of needlessly killing animals in violation of G.S. 14-360. From judgments imposing prison sentences, they appealed.
Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General Jesse G. Brake for the State.
William E. Craft for defendant appellants.

Opinion:
PARKER, Judge.
Defendants assign as errors, first, the denial of their motions for directed verdicts of not guilty, and, second, the failure of the court "to properly instruct the jury as to the value of circumstantial evidence." We find no error in either assignment.
The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was amply sufficient to require submission of the cases to the jury, and defendants' motions, which we treat as motions for nonsuit, State v. Holton, 284 N.C. 391, 200 S.E. 2d 612 (1973), were properly denied.
The court correctly instructed the jury as-to the burden and quantum of proof required for conviction, and absent a request for special instructions the court was not required to instruct the jury as to how it should view circumstantial evidence. State v. Warren, 228 N.C. 22, 44 S.E. 2d 207 (1947) ; State v. Murray, 21 N.C. App. 573, 205 S.E. 2d 587 (1974) ; 3 Strong; N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 112, p. 8.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record and find
No error.
Judges Hedrick and Clark concur.