State v. Fuqua
| Decision Date | 19 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 234 N.C. 168,66 S.E.2d 667 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. FUQUA. |
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., Ralph Moody, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert B. Broughton, Member of Staff, Raleigh, for the State.
P. W. Glidewell, Sr., Reidsville, for defendant, appellant.
The defendant does not question the propriety of the admission of any of the evidence of the State's witness, Deputy Sheriff Fowlkes. In consequence, the testimony as to reports to law enforcement officers concerning the activities of the accused is governed by the rule which prevails in this jurisdiction that where hearsay is admitted without objection, it may be considered with the other evidence and given any evidentiary value which it may possess. Maley v. Thomasville Furniture Co., 214 N.C. 589, 200 S.E. 438.
The solitary assignment of error made by the defendant is that the trial judge erred in refusing to dismiss the action upon a compulsory nonsuit. G.S. 15-173.
Inasmuch as the criminal laws of North Carolina have no force beyond the borders of the State and can not apply to any intoxicating liquor which may have been cached at the barn in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the validity of the conviction of the defendant necessarily hinges on the sufficiency of the State's testimony to establish these two propositions: (1) That the defendant possessed the intoxicating liquor contained in the cup found in his store; and (2) that the defendant's possession of such intoxicating liquor was illegal.
An accused has possession of intoxicating liquor within the meaning of the law when he has both the power and the intent to control its disposition or use. The requisite power to control may reside in the accused acting alone or in combination with others. State v. Meyers, 190 N.C. 239, 129 S.E. 600.
This being true, the testimony offered by the State at the trial justifies the inference that the defendant had possession of the intoxicating liquor in the cup; for such evidence tends to show that the defendant, acting either alone or in combination with his servant, 'Big Head' Ware, had both the power and the intent to control the disposition or use of such liquor.
This brings us to the final inquiry whether the testimony is sufficient to sustain an additional inference that the defendant's possession of the intoxicating liquor in the cup was illegal.
Caswell County has not elected to operate county liquor stores under the Alcoholic Beverage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Linda Beth Chekanow & Robert David Bishop
...may have the power to control either alone or jointly with others." Miller, 363 N.C. at 99, 678 S.E.2d at 594 (citing State v. Fuqua, 234 N.C. 168, 170-71, 66 S.E.2d 667, 668 (1951)). When contraband is "found on the premises under the control of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, giv......
-
State v. Chekanow
...may have the power to control either alone or jointly with others." Miller, 363 N.C. at 99, 678 S.E.2d at 594 (citing State v. Fuqua , 234 N.C. 168, 170-71, 66 S.E.2d 667, 668 (1951) ). When contraband is "found on the premises under the control of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, g......
-
State v. Harvey
...as to justify the jury in concluding that the same was in his possession.' State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 406, 183 S.E. 680; State v. Fuqua, 234 N.C. 168, 66 S.E.2d 667; Hunt v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 618, 258 S.W.2d 320; People v. Galloway, 28 Ill.2d 355, 192 N.E.2d In this case the State's eviden......
-
State v. Miller
...346 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1986). The defendant may have the power to control either alone or jointly with others. State v. Fuqua, 234 N.C. 168, 170-71, 66 S.E.2d 667, 668 (1951). Unless a defendant has exclusive possession of the place where the contraband is found, the State must show other inc......