State v. Ingram

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Ingram

90 S.E.2d 304, 243 N.C. 190, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 552

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 30, 1955

Docket577

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 90 S.E.2d 304 (State v. Ingram) 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. Ingram, 90 S.E.2d 304, 243 N.C. 190, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 552 (N.C. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Pek Curiam.

The State’s evidence tends to show that officers, under authority of a search warrant, found a quantity of tax-paid whiskey in defendant’s possession, in her home; and there was plenary evidence that she had it for the purpose of sale. The ruling that the evidence was sufficient for submission to the jury was. correct. Moreover, defendant’s assignments of error challenging the rulings of the court in admitting certain of the testimony offered by the State are without merit. The trial and verdict are upheld.

However, since defendant promptly excepted thereto and appealed therefrom, the conditional judgment pronounced was not based on defendant’s consent, express or implied. Hence, for the reasons stated by Winborne, J., in S. v. Ritchie, ante, 182, the judgment is stricken out and the cause is remanded for the pronouncement of a new judgment.

Error and remanded.

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

Pek Curiam.

The State’s evidence tends to show that officers, under authority of a search warrant, found a quantity of tax-paid whiskey in defendant’s possession, in her home; and there was plenary evidence that she had it for the purpose of sale. The ruling that the evidence was sufficient for submission to the jury was. correct. Moreover, defendant’s assignments of error challenging the rulings of the court in admitting certain of the testimony offered by the State are without merit. The trial and verdict are upheld.

However, since defendant promptly excepted thereto and appealed therefrom, the conditional judgment pronounced was not based on defendant’s consent, express or implied. Hence, for the reasons stated by Winborne, J., in S. v. Ritchie, ante, 182, the judgment is stricken out and the cause is remanded for the pronouncement of a new judgment.

Error and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E.2d 304, 243 N.C. 190, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ingram-nc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack