Title: State v. Holloway
Citation: 138 S.E.2d 629, 262 N.C. 753
Docket Number: 436
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: November 11, 1964

138 S.E.2d 629 (1964) 262 N.C. 753 STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Earl HOLLOWAY. No. 436. Supreme Court of North Carolina. November 11, 1964. Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard T. Sanders for the State. Charles H. Sedberry, Raleigh, for defendant. *630 PER CURIAM. To convict defendant, the State relied upon the rule of evidence that recent possession of stolen property tends to show the possessor guilty of the theft. State v. Holbrook, 223 N.C. 622, 27 S.E.2d 725. Defendant challenges the following italicized portions of his Honor's charge: Those portions of the charge to which defendant excepts are clearly erroneous. State v. Ramsey, 241 N.C. 181, 84 S.E.2d 807. After telling the jurors that the burden was on the State to satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty, the judge charged that it was defendant's duty to raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt that he had neither entered the building nor stolen the televisions. The jury is not supposed to know which of two conflicting instructions is correct. State v. Falkner, 182 N.C. 793, 108 S.E. 756, 17 A.L.R. 986; State v. Starnes, 220 N.C. 384, 17 S.E.2d 346. For this prejudicial error there must be a New trial.