# State v. Hargett

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · February 19, 2002 · 148 N.C. App. 688

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587036

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Ernest G. Hargett
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 19, 2002
- **Citations:** 148 N.C. App. 688; 559 S.E.2d 282; 2002 N.C. App. LEXIS 63
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Greene
- **Judges:** Tyson, Hunter, Greene
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587036

## Opinion text

GREENE, Judge,
concurring.
Although I fully concur with the majority, I write separately to more specifically address defendant’s recent possession argument. Defendant contends the recent possession doctrine cannot apply in this felonious larceny case because there is no evidence he knew or should have known “the goods had been feloniously stolen.” Although there is no evidence defendant knew or should have known the goods he possessed had been stolen in a breaking and entering of the T&J Variety Store, such showing is not necessary. Once it had been established the store had been broken into and entered and merchandise taken therefrom, defendant’s “recent possession of such stolen merchandise raises presumptions of fact that [he] is guilty of the larceny and of the breaking and entering.” State v. Allison, 265 N.C. 512, 516 , 144 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1965). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in submitting the felonious larceny charge to the jury.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587036. Public record. Not legal advice.