State v. Dickerson

• Decision Date: 25 March 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 241.)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. DICKERSON.

127 S.E. 256

(189 N.C. 327)

STATE.

v.DICKERSON.

(No. 241.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 25, 1925.

Appeal from Superior Court, Daniels County; Franklin, Judge.

Clifton Dickerson was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. No error.

The indictment charges the defendant in three counts:

(1) With the manufacture, and aiding and abetting in the manufacturing of intoxicating liquor.

(2) Did keep and possess materials, substance, and property, designed for the manufacture of liquor, etc.

(3) Did have and keep on hand intoxicating liquor for the purpose of being sold, etc.

The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The court below rendered judgment. Defendant excepted, assigned errors, and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Thos. W. Ruffin, of Louisburg, for appellant.

Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CLARKSON, J. N. F. Britt testified in part as follows:

"I am a Baptist minister, and the pastor of Corinth Baptist Church, at Ingleside, Franklin county. I have been pastor for that church about five years; that I have known the defendants Clifton Dickerson, Hurley Dickerson, Jesse Dickerson, John Holden, and Hubert Holden for the time I have been pastor of the Corinth Baptist Church. Some time previous to November 7, 1924, I discovered in some woods on the Franklin county poorhouse land two barrels of beer, which is the kind used in distilling liquor. In company with Bennett Faulkner I watched these two barrels of beer for three nights in succession, expecting some one to engage in manufacturing the stuff into liquor. On the night of November 7, 1924, with Bennett Faulkner, I concealed myself in an open space of the woods about 60 yards from the place where the two barrels of beer were standing. We went there about 7 o'clock and stayed until past 9. While we were there, a party of men came up to the still site and proceeded to begin operations. They set up the still nearer to me than I had expected. They cut wood and built up a fire, and by the light of the fire I recognized the parties mentioned, to wit, Hurley, Jesse, and Clifton Dickerson, John Holden and Hubert Holden. I saw Clifton Dickerson standing close by the fire, and pretty soon he came out near where I was lying, and cut a sourwood bush about as big as my wrist, and I recognized it as being Clifton Dickerson for sure. After cutting down the sourwood bush, he took his axe and beat one end of it upon a stump, making a ladle out of it, and carried it back to the still, where it was used for stirring the beer in the kettle. I saw him cutting wood and moving about with the others. He stayed out near where I was when cutting the bush down about five minutes. I saw the still on the fire, and saw one of the men pouring the beer into the still. We remained there about two hours, and left the men operating the still."

F. Bennett Faulkner testified in part as follows:

"I saw Clifton Dickerson cutting wood, and also saw him cut the sourwood bush and beat up the end on a stump to make something to stir the beer with. I saw him starting the fire. We stayed there about two hours, and left them operating the still."

Clifton Dickerson, defendant, testified in part as follows:

"I am a married man, 25 years of age, and have three children. I live about 7 1/2 miles from the place where Mr. Britt said I was distilling. I was not distilling, and never have had any dealings with whisky or been connected with it in any way. On the night of November 7, 1924, I was at home, hanging tobacco in my packhouse. I was not at that still. Mr. Jack Goswick was with me from 6 o'clock that night until 12 o'clock. While we were hanging tobacco Arch Higgs, an old colored man, who worked with me, came by the packhouse about 9 o'clock that night while we were hanging tobacco. I have never been convicted of any violation of the law in court."

Dickerson was corroborated by Jack Goswick and Arch Higgs.

Otha Hayes testified:

"I had a conversation with Mr. Britt, the prosecuting witness of the state, in the presence of the defendant, Clifton Dickerson, and Mr. Britt stated to me at first that he saw Clifton Dickerson at the still, and then said he could not swear that he had seen him, but somebody else could."

Mr. Britt, recalled, testified:

"That he did not tell Mr. Clifton Dickerson in the presence of Otha Hayes that he did not see him at the still, but told Mr. Dickerson that he had seen him at the still, and would swear to it at the proper time."

Several witnesses testified to defendant's good character and several witnesses testified to defendant's bad character for the last three years.

There were no errors assigned to the charge of the court below.

The defendant, Clifton Dickerson, sets up in his own behalf an alibi. If the evidence of himself and his witnesses is to be believed, he was not guilty. The issue before the jury, under the plea of not guilty, was whether Clifton Dickerson was at the still doing the acts as testified to by the state's witnesses. The jury was satisfied of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and found him guilty. Defendant contends that he should be granted a new trial for errors committed on the trial in the court below.

The first group of assignment of errors were to the following questions asked Mr. Britt, state's witness, and answers thereto:

"Q. Where are the defendants Hurley Dickerson and Jesse Dickerson? Answer: They have run away.

"Q. Where does Hurley Dickerson live? Answer: Witness answered that he lived near Ingleside."

We must get the setting of the case. Mr. Britt testified, without objection, that he knew Clifton Dickerson, Hurley Dickerson, Jesse Dickerson, John Holden, and Hubert Holden. They proceeded to begin operations —they set up the still. "They cut wood and built up a fire." Mr. Britt knew them all, and recognized them by the light of the fire. The parties were not jointly indicted and tried, but only the defendant, Clifton Dickerson, was on trial. Mr. Britt was the main prosecuting witness; he had watched, and was mainly responsible for the prosecution. The question would naturally arise, as Mr. Britt saw the others at the still, Why was Clifton Dickerson alone indicted? To single out one to be prosecuted without the others would seriously affect the credibility of the testimony of Mr. Britt. The inquiry would be: What has become of Hurley and Jesse Dickerson? The prosecution wanted to explain the absence of men whom Mr. Britt saw operating the still and who should be indicted. To account for their absence it was necessary to show that they had fled. Where Hurley Dickerson lived was immaterial. We think the questions and answers admissible under the facts and circumstances of this case. In fact, the whole contest between the state and the defendant was as to the identity of the defendant. Was he in the party? The fact that Hurley and Jesse Dickerson fled was only a circumstance to be considered as to their guilt, and in no way affected the guilt of defendant. The fact that defendant stood his trial was, no doubt, used to show his innocence, and the ancient proverb called into play: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are bold as a lion."

We cannot hold the questions and answers either erroneous or prejudicial. Flight is only a circumstance against the party who fied.

In State v. Case, 93 N. C. p. 546, it is said:

"In criminal cases, every circumstance that is calculated to throw light upon the supposed crime is admissible. State v. Swink, 2 Dev. & Bat. 9. The fact that immediately after the discovery of a grime the person charged with its commission flies [fled] is admitted as a circumstance to be considered by the jury. State v. Nat., 6 Jones, 114. So it is held that, if the prisoner, when arrested, attempts to make his escape, or attempts to bribe the officer to let him escape, the evidence is admissible. 11 Geo. 123; ...