State v. Hinton, 14 N.C. App. 666 (1972)

May 24, 1972 · North Carolina Court of Appeals · No. 7210SC270
14 N.C. App. 666
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY DENNIS HINTON

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY DENNIS HINTON

No. 7210SC270

(Filed 24 May 1972)

Appeal by defendant from Brewer, Judge, 15 November 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Wake County.

Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with felonious larceny and receiving. The State took a nol pros on the receiving charge and prosecuted defendant, who entered a plea of not guilty, only upon the larceny charge.

The State’s evidence tended to show that a step-van-type Chevrolet truck was taken from the premises of Fisher’s Bakery and Sandwich Company in Raleigh during the early morning hours of 10 July 1971. The stolen truck was stopped by a police officer, who was suspicious because of the hour of the morning; defendant was found to be the operator. Defendant had his driver’s license and the vehicle registration was posted in the truck; therefore, the officer had no cause for arrest, because there had been no stolen vehicle report filed on this truck at the time. However, when the same truck was later found abandoned, the officer remembered defendant and defendant’s name.

Defendant’s evidence tended to establish an alibi.

From a verdict of guilty and judgment entered, defendant appealed.

Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Safron, for the State.

Sanford, Cannon, Adams & McCullough, by John H. Parker, for defendant.

BROCK, Judge.

We have carefully examined the record, the evidence, and the judge’s instructions to the jury. The bill of indictment is sufficient to charge defendant with the offense for which he was tried. The trial court was duly organized and had jurisdiction of the defendant and the offense charged. The State’s evidence fully required submission of the case to the jury. The jury was instructed upon the appropriate principles of law. The punish*667ment imposed was within the statutory limits. In our opinion defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Campbell concur.