State v. Brady
| Decision Date | 14 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 219,219 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. BRADY. |
Atty. Gen. Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen. Ralph Moody, and Robert L. Emanuel, Member of the Staff, Raleigh, for the State.
Pittmen & Staton, Sanford, McLean & Stacy, Lumberton, for defendant appellant.
Defendant brings to this Court numerous assignments of error on which he states, in his brief, three questions relating: (1) To exceptions to the admission of testimony as to other offenses. (2) To exception to admission of evidence obtained under search warrant. (3) To exceptions to the charge of the court.
I. The second question as stated relates to denial of defendant's motion to strike the testimony that the State's witness Deputy Sheriff Quidley obtained under the search warrant. This exception is without merit. See State v. McLamb, 235 N.C. 251, 69 S.E.2d 537, 540. There the search warrant was obtained under circumstances almost identical to the circumstances under which the search warrant was obtained in the case in hand. There exceptions, as here, were taken to the admission of evidence secured by officers under the search warrant. It was contended that the search warrant was defective for that the justicc of the peace, who issued it, failed to comply with the requisites of G.S. § 15-27, and amendments thereto, in that the procuring officer was not required to furnish sufficient facts to show probable cause for the issuance of such warrant. In connection therewith this Court held that the provisions of G.S. § 18-13 are applicable rather than those of G.S. § 15-27, saying that G.S. § 18-13 provides that 'upon * * * information furnished unhder oath by an officer charged with the execution of the law, before a justice of the peace * * * that he has reason to believe that any person has in his possession, at a place or places specified, liquor for the purpose of sale, a warrant shall be issued commanding the officer to whom it is directed to search the place or places described in such * * information; that if such liquor be found in any such place or places, to seize and take into his custody all such liquor * * * and to keep the same subject to the order of the court.' And the court concluded the subject in these words: 'Testing the affidavit of the officer here in question by the provisions of this statute, G.S. § 18-13, it appears that the matters contained in the affidavit are sufficient to justify the justice of the peace to issue the search warrant' and 'hence, in the admission of the evidence to which such exceptions relate, error is not made to appear.' What is said there is pertinent, and applicable here.
II. The first question is based upon exceptions which challenge the competency of evidence that on several other occasions, within two years, when defendant's home was searched, whiskey was found therein,--but never more than 4 or 5 pints. This does not make a prina facie case of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale on those occasions.
Indeed, under the law as enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina, where a person has in his possession taxpaid intoxicating liquors in quantity not in excess of one gallon, in his private dwelling, in a county in which the sale of such intoxicating liquor is not authorized under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, P.L. 1937, Chap. 49, nothing else appearing, such possession is not now prima facie evidence that such intoxicants are so possessed for the purpose of sale. See State v. Suddreth, 223 N.C. 610, 27 S.E.2d 623; State v. Watts, 224...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mills, 3
... ... § 18-13, and comparing it with the affidavit in State v. McLamb, 235 N.C. 251, 69 S.E.2d 537, and the affidavit in full in the record on file in the Clerk's Office in State v. Brady, 238 N.C. 404, 78 S.E.2d 126, it appears that the description in Owens' affidavit of the premises of the defendant to be searched is sufficiently particular and definite to justify the Justice of the Peace in issuing the search warrant to search the premises of the defendant therein described ... ...
- Wilson v. Chandler
-
Owens v. Kelly
...The conflicting instructions were material and prejudicial, since the jury may have acted upon the incorrect instruction. State v. Brady, 238 N.C. 404, 78 S.E.2d 126. Another trial seems necessary. It is so New trial. ...
-
State v. Wooten
... ... It was then proper impeachment for the district attorney to ask the defendant about the bags containing cocaine residue found in the defendant's possession when he was arrested ... Defendant argues the testimony is not admissible under Rule 404(b) and relies on State v. Brady, 238 N.C. 404, 78 S.E.2d 126[104 N.C.App. 129] (1953) and State v. Emery, 91 N.C.App. 24, 370 S.E.2d 456 (1988). Regardless of whether this testimony would otherwise be allowable under Rule 404(b), in this circumstance ... it is proper impeachment testimony and is therefore admissible ... ...