State v. . Clark

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Clark

110 S.E. 641, 183 N.C. 733, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 353

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 1, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 110 S.E. 641 (State v. . Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Clark, 110 S.E. 641, 183 N.C. 733, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 353 (N.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Adams, J.

“It is unlawful to manufacture or to aid and abet in the manufacture of spirituous or malt liquors or intoxicating bitters.” C. S., 3409. Any person committing a breach of this statute shall for the first conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for the second or any subsequent conviction shall be guilty of a felony. Ibid. The indictment does not charge a previous conviction of the defendant, and it is therefore j>resumed that he has not heretofore been convicted of this offense. C. S., 4617; S. v. Dunlap, 159 N. C., 492. The defendant, then, is prosecuted for a misdemeanor, and even if he merely aided and abetted in the manufacture of the liquor he is equally guilty with the person who actually operated the still. The only question involved in the appeal is whether the evidence, construed in the light more favorable to the State, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. A verdict cannot rest upon mere suspicion, or conjecture, or speculation; there must be legal evidence of every material fact which is necessary to support the indictment. It is sufficient, however, if the substance of the offense is proved, and if the evidence on the whole agrees with and supports the hypothesis which it is adduced to prove. 23 C. J., 52. In S. v. Prince, 182 N. C., 788, on which the defendant relies, it is said: “The province of the jury should *735 not be invaded in any case, and when reasonable minds, acting within the limitations prescribed by the rules of law, might reach different conclusions, the evidence must be submitted to the jury. Campbell v. Everhart, 139 N. C., 516, 52 S. E., 201; Lewis v. Steamship Co., 132 N. C., 904, 44 S. E., 666; Wheeler v. Schroeder, 4 R. I., 383; Offutt v. Col. Exposition, 175 Ill., 472, 51 N. E., 651; Day v. Railroad, 96 Me., 207, 52 At., 771, 90 Am. St. Rep., 335; Catlett v. Railway, 57 Ark., 461, 21 S. W., 1062, 38 Am. St. Rep., 254; Railroad v. Stebbing, 62 Md., 504.” Applying these principles to the evidence, we think his Honor properly submitted to the jury the question' of the defendant’s guilt. Certainly, upon the State’s evidence reasonable minds might reach different conclusions. There is no error, and this will be certified to the Superior Court of Chatham County.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams, J.

“It is unlawful to manufacture or to aid and abet in the manufacture of spirituous or malt liquors or intoxicating bitters.” C. S., 3409. Any person committing a breach of this statute shall for the first conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for the second or any subsequent conviction shall be guilty of a felony. Ibid. The indictment does not charge a previous conviction of the defendant, and it is therefore j>resumed that he has not heretofore been convicted of this offense. C. S., 4617; S. v. Dunlap, 159 N. C., 492. The defendant, then, is prosecuted for a misdemeanor, and even if he merely aided and abetted in the manufacture of the liquor he is equally guilty with the person who actually operated the still. The only question involved in the appeal is whether the evidence, construed in the light more favorable to the State, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. A verdict cannot rest upon mere suspicion, or conjecture, or speculation; there must be legal evidence of every material fact which is necessary to support the indictment. It is sufficient, however, if the substance of the offense is proved, and if the evidence on the whole agrees with and supports the hypothesis which it is adduced to prove. 23 C. J., 52. In S. v. Prince, 182 N. C., 788, on which the defendant relies, it is said: “The province of the jury should *735 not be invaded in any case, and when reasonable minds, acting within the limitations prescribed by the rules of law, might reach different conclusions, the evidence must be submitted to the jury. Campbell v. Everhart, 139 N. C., 516, 52 S. E., 201; Lewis v. Steamship Co., 132 N. C., 904, 44 S. E., 666; Wheeler v. Schroeder, 4 R. I., 383; Offutt v. Col. Exposition, 175 Ill., 472, 51 N. E., 651; Day v. Railroad, 96 Me., 207, 52 At., 771, 90 Am. St. Rep., 335; Catlett v. Railway, 57 Ark., 461, 21 S. W., 1062, 38 Am. St. Rep., 254; Railroad v. Stebbing, 62 Md., 504.” Applying these principles to the evidence, we think his Honor properly submitted to the jury the question' of the defendant’s guilt. Certainly, upon the State’s evidence reasonable minds might reach different conclusions. There is no error, and this will be certified to the Superior Court of Chatham County.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 641, 183 N.C. 733, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clark-nc-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack