State v. Mills

69 S.E.2d 313, 235 N.C. 226, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 371
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 5, 1952·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

YalektiNE, J.

A witness for tbe State was asked if be knew tbe general character and reputation of tbe defendant. He replied: “It is good with tbe exception of dealing in whiskey.”

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a witness, who is questioned only as to defendant’s general character, may qualify and explain bis answer. S. v. McLawhorn, 195 N.C. 327, 141 S.E. 883; S. v. Saleeby, 183 N.C. 740, 110 S.E. 844; S. v. Mills, 184 N.C. 694, 114 S.E. 314; S. v. Reagan, 185 N.C. 710, 117 S.E. 1; S. v. Fleming, 194 N.C. 42, 138 S.E. 342; S. v. Pridgen, 194 N.C. 795, 139 S.E. 601; S. v. Butler, 177 N.C. 585, 98 S.E. 821; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, Sec. 114.

There was sufficient evidence to support tbe verdict of guilty upon tbe charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for tbe purpose of sale. S. v. Carlson, 171 N.C. 818, 89 S.E. 30; S. v. Mann, 219 N.C. 212, 13 S.E. 2d 247; S. v. Johnson, 220 N.C. 773, 18 S.E. 2d 358; G.S. 15-173.

Hence, tbe judgment of tbe court below must stand.

No error.

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

State v. Mills, 69 S.E.2d 313, 235 N.C. 226, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 371 (N.C. 1952).

69 S.E.2d 313 (State v. Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Sidden
340 S.E.2d 340 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)