Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MURLE EDWARD HINTON
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1973-12-12
Citations: 20 N.C. App. 210
Docket Number: No. 738SC777
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MURLE EDWARD HINTON
Judges: Judges Parker and Baley concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MURLE EDWARD HINTON
No. 738SC777
(Filed 12 December 1973)
Appeal by defendant from James, Judge, 9 July 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Wayne County.
Defendant was tried upon two bills of indictment, consolidated for purpose of trial and this appeal, each charging the felony of breaking and entering, and the felony of larceny after breaking and entering. One bill of indictment charged the breaking and entering into the home of Mr. and Mrs. David R. Best, and the larceny of a quantity of personal property therefrom on 24 May 1973. The other bill of indictment charged the breaking and entering of the home of Mr. and Mrs. Billy R. Howell, and the larceny of a quantity of personal property therefrom on 24 May 1973.
The State’s evidence tended to show the following: The homes of Mr. and Mrs. Best and Mr. and Mrs. Howell are in a rural community about two miles west of Goldsboro. During the morning of 24 May 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Best and Mr. and Mrs. Howell were not at home; during the time they were away, their homes were broken into. During the morning of 24 May 1973 defendant was seen walking along the street about three blocks from the Best. home. At the time he had a duffle bag over his shoulder and a portable television set in his hand. He was observed as he placed these items behind a pile of limbs in a field near the edge of the road. Defendant continued down the street and was later observed working on his car which was stopped on the edge of the street. Defendant took a suitcase from the trunk of his car and threw it into an adjoining field. A deputy sheriff was called to the scene, and he investigated the contents of the suitcase and the duffle bag.
The portable television set and the items contained in the duffle bag were property taken from the home of Mr. and Mrs. Howell. The items contained in the suitcase were property taken from the home of Mr. and Mrs. Best.
Defendant offered no evidence.
Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Jones, for the State.
George R. Britt, for the defendant.

Opinion:
BROCK, Chief Judge.
The trial court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the subject matter. The indictments were proper in form and defendant was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. Defendant was clearly identified by several persons who observed his conduct on the day in question. The personal property of which he had possession before undertaking to hide it was clearly identified as having been taken from the homes of Mr. and Mrs. Best and Mr. and Mrs. Howell without their knowledge or consent. The evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty. The case was presented to the jury upon applicable principles of law. The jury verdict was unambiguous and the sentences imposed are well within the maximum authorized.
Counsel has perfected this appeal at the insistence of defendant, although counsel candidly states he is unable to find error. At counsel's request, we have reviewed the record for possible prejudicial error and find none.
No error.
Judges Parker and Baley concur.