State v. . Rhodes

187 S.E. 553, 210 N.C. 473, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 135
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 23, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 187 S.E. 553 (State v. . Rhodes) 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. . Rhodes, 187 S.E. 553, 210 N.C. 473, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 135 (N.C. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only assignment of error is to the refusal of the court to allow defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit.

The evidence for the State was to the effect that the defendant was the proprietor of a small store, operated a pool table, and had groceries for sale; that upon a search of the premises the officers found two bottles with about a tablespoonful of whiskey and a glass jug with about a half pint of whiskey in it, two small glasses with odor of whiskey, and a small funnel with odor of whiskey. These bottles and jug were behind the counter. The glasses were on a shelf on the other side of the store. In addition, there were several fruit jars in one corner of the store which had odor of whiskey in them. Outside the back door at the end of a path about eight steps away were found six pints of whiskey, concealed in some weeds.

While the quantity of whiskey found was not sufficient to 'invoke the statutory provision making out a prima facie case under C. S., 3379, the various vessels in which the liquor was contained, the paraphernalia, location, and other surrounding circumstances, did constitute some evidence of the purpose and intent with which the whiskey was possessed by the defendant. As was said in S. v. Langley, 209 N. C., 178 : “Without regard to the statutory presumption arising from the quantity of liquor in possession, under C. S., 3379 (2), . . . the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence were sufficient to justify the inference by the jury that the defendant had such liquor in his possession for sale.”

The motion for judgment as of nonsuit was properly overruled. In the trial we find

No error.

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

Related

State v. Perry
57 S.E.2d 774 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
State v. . Elder
6 S.E.2d 840 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 S.E. 553, 210 N.C. 473, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rhodes-nc-1936.