In State v. Joyner, 301 N.C. 18, 28, 269 S.E.2d 125, 132 (1980), the defendant challenged a jury instruction indicating that the doctrine of recent possession could be considered as evidence that the defendant was guilty of rape. Joyner, 301 N.C. at 27, 269 S.E.2d at 131. In upholding the jury instruction given by the trial judge, the Supreme Court of North Carolina held: While the trial judge here referred to the "doctrine of recent possession," he nowhere charged that the fact of possession raised a presumption or even an inference that defendant was guilty of any of the crimes charged against him. He merely stated that the jury might consider defendant's recent possession "together with all the other facts and circumstances in deciding whether or not the defendant is guilty of rape, burglary and larceny." Here the evidence tends to show that the larceny, burglary and rape all occurred at or about the same time as part of one criminal enterprise committed by the same assailant. Under these circumstances defendant's recent possession of the stolen property is a circumstance tending to show that defendant was present in Ms. Young's apartment at the time the rape occurred. Therefore it is a circumstance which the jury was entitled to consider on the question of defendant's guilt not only of the larceny but also of the rape. "Whenever goods have been taken as a part of the criminal act, the fact of subsequent possession is some indication that the possessor was the taker, and therefore the doer of the whole crime." Id. at 29, 269 S.E.2d at 132.