State v. Glenn

State v. John Glenn

State v. Glenn, 23 S.E. 1004 (N.C. 1896)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: February 5, 1896
Judges: Clark
Citations: 23 S.E. 1004118 N.C. 1194

Headnotes

Indictment, for Wilful Trespass on Land — Oode, Section 1120 — Burden of Proof — Bona Fide Claim of Right— Reasonable Belief — Harmless Error. 1. In an indictment under Section 1120 of The Code for entering upon land after being forbidden, it is incumbent on the State to prove such entry, but it is upon the defendant to show, by way of defense, that he entered under a license from the owner or a bona fide claim of right. 2. In the trial of an indictment for willful trespass on land, the defendant must show that he not only entered under a belief in his right to enter but that he had reasonable grounds for such belief. Such défense must be proved not beyond a reasonable doubt but only to the satisfaction of the jury. 3. Where, in the trial of an indictment for willful trespass on land, there was no evidence that the defendant had reasonable ground for his belief in his right to enter, an instruction to the jury that such defense must be proved beyond a reasonable ground is harmless error. 4. One who enters land after being forbidden, pending an appeal from an adverse adjudication upon his title to the land, can have no reasonable ground for believing that he has a right to so enter and his entry subjects him to the penalties of Section 1120 of The Code.

Summary

INDICTMENT, under Section 1120 of The Code, for willful trespass on land after being forbidden, tried,, on appeal from a justice of the peace, before Btarbucic, </., and a jury, at January Term, 1895, of Wake Superior Court. Tlie defendant was convicted and appealed. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of Associate Justice Claee.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Clark

*1195 Clark, J.:

It was incumbent upon the State to prove that the defendant (indicted' under The Code, Sec. 1120,) had entered upon the land after being forbiddeu so to do. It devolved upon the defendant to show by way of defense that he entered under a license or a bona fide claim of right, since those are matters peculiarly within his knowledge. The license referred to is not a license from the owner,, as that is negatived by the allegation that the defendant was forbidden to enter, but it is the license from some justice,, mentioned in the proviso to Section 1120. This license,, likp the license to sell liquor on the trial of an indictment for retailing without license, is a matter of defense, and it is incumbent upon the defendant to show it. The State is not called on to prove the negative.

State v. Morrison, 14 N. C., 299 ;

State v. Emry, 98 N. C., 668 . It devolved upon the defendant to prove in defense, not merely a belief that he had a bona fide right to enter, but he “ was. bound to prove that he had reasonable ground for such belief.”

State v. Bryson, 81 N. C., 595 ; State v. Crawley, 103 N. C., 353 .

In the present case it was in evidence that the title te the premises had been decided adversely to the defendant in the superior court (which judgment on appeal here was. affirmed,) and that the entry was made by the defendant after such adverse decision below and pending the appeal to this Court. In the face of an adverse decision in the superior court, the defendant had no right to take the law into his own hands and make an entry on the laud in controversy. The defendant introduced no evidence even of his belief of his right to enter. However reasonable or-unreasonable might be his grounds for a belief that the superior court was in error in adjudging the title to the premises against him, he had ño reasonable ground of a.

*1196 ■belief that he had a “ right to enter ” after such judgment, ■until reversed.

There being no evidence of reasonable ground for such belief, “the court properly instructed the jury in substance, that if they believed the evidence the defendant was guilty.”

State v. Fisher, 109 N. C., 817 .

No Error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Baker56 S.E.2d 424 (N.C. 1949)
Boykin v. State40 Fla. 484 (1898)
State v. Travis81 S.E.2d 678 (W. Va. 1954)
S. v. Durham28 S.E. 22 (N.C. 1897)
State v. BoykinNo. 19-686 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2020)
Speas v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.125 S.E. 398 (N.C. 1924)

Most recent

State v. BoykinNo. 19-686 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2020)
State v. Avent118 S.E.2d 47 (N.C. 1961)
State v. Travis81 S.E.2d 678 (W. Va. 1954)
State v. Baker56 S.E.2d 424 (N.C. 1949)
Speas v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.125 S.E. 398 (N.C. 1924)
State v. Falkner108 S.E. 756 (N.C. 1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State v. Emery, 3 S.E. 636 (N.C. 1887)	16
	State v. Bryson, 81 N.C. 595 (1879)	11
	State v. Crawley, 9 S.E. 409 (N.C. 1889)	8
	State v. Morrison, 14 N.C. 299 (1831)	7
	Tate v. Fisher, 13 S.E. 878 (N.C. 1891)	7

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list