Court Opinion

ID: 9810308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:46:07.127309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:34.291744
License: Public Domain

BeogdeN, J.,
dissenting: In cases in which the State relies upon circumstantial evidence alone for conviction the facts established or produced at the trial must be of such nature and so related to each other as to point unerringly to the defendant’s guilt and exclude every rational hypothesis of innocence. S. v. Goodson, 107 N. C., 798; S. v. Wilcox, 132 N. C., 1139; S. v. Melton, 187 N. C., 481. The incriminating evidence in the case at bar is vague, uncertain and inconclusive as to the vital fact of guilt. Therefore, they are insufficient, "under the law, to warrant a verdict of guilty, and, in my judgment the trial judge should have nonsuited the case. S. v. Montague, 195 N. C., 20.