State v. Green
| Decision Date | 26 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 276.) |
| Citation | 122 S.E. 178 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. GREEN. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Brunswick County; Cranmer, Judge.
Nathaniel Green was convicted of manufacturing liquor or aiding and abetting in such manufacture, and he appeals. No error.
John D. Bellamy & Sons, of Wilmington, for appellant.
James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of manufacturing liquor or aiding and abetting in such manufacture. The evidence showed that the defendant was actively engaged in the manufacture of liquor at the time the officers saw him at a distillery, pursued him and captured him. The distillery had just been tired up, it was full of mash, and the worm had been connected up. The defendant was the only person present at the time the officer came up within 30 steps of him. He ran, and the officer ran after him and caught him. The defendant's clothing showed that he had been operating the still; he having smut all over his trousers and shirt, and beer or mash upon his trousers. He told one of the officers that he was operating the still when they caught him, and, when carried before the justice of the peace and asked whether he was guilty or not, said he was.
Another officer testified that he had found another still at which he had arrested an old negro named Jim McLean about a quarter or half a mile from where they found the defendant. The witness said, "Jim point-ed out the direction where we could find the defendant and his still."
The defendant objected to this testimony, which was overruled, and he excepted. There are two reasons why the admission of this statement is not reversible error: First, it was a voluntary statement by the witness, and the only way to take advantage of the error was to move to strike out the testimony and to except to the ruling if this was refused. Instead of doing this, the defendant's counsel contented himself with a simple objection. Second, the error in admitting this testimony was under the circumstances of this case harmless. The defendant himself had twice admitted that he was at the still and was operating it when the officers came up. It was in consequence of what Jim told the officers they went to the still and found him there operating it, and not evidence of his guilt.
The second exception was to the cross-examination of a character witness introduced by the defendant. The solicitor sought to test his evidence as to the character of another witness, who by his own admission went into the woods with a man who was manufacturing whisky to get whisky from him. If there was any error in asking this question it was eliminated by the answer of the witness, who answered that the character of the defendant was good as far as he knew, adding, "I would not like to say that every white man or colored man who tried to buy a little whisky had a bad character.
Exceptions 3 and 4 were because the charge of the judge to the jury was as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vick
...253 N.C. 37, 116 S.E.2d 194; State v. Holland, 216 N.C. 610, 6 S.E.2d 217; State v. Ray, 195 N.C. 619, 143 S.E. 143; State v. Green, 187 N.C. 466, 122 S.E. 178. We need not decide whether this prosecuting witness is an 'interested' witness since an instruction to scrutinize the testimony of......
-
State v. Poole
...should believe that the witness has told the truth, they should give him as full credit as if he were disinterested.' State v. Green, 187 N.C. 466, 122 S.E. 178 (1924). Accord, State v. Griffin, 280 N.C. 142, 185 S.E.2d 149 (1971); State v. Barrow, 276 N.C. 381, 172 S.E.2d 512 (1970); State......
-
Rutherford v. Bass Air Conditioning Co., Inc.
...to take advantage of the error is to move to strike the testimony and to except to the denial of that motion on appeal. State v. Green, 187 N.C. 466, 122 S.E. 178 (1924); State v. McMullin, 23 N.C.App. 90, 208 S.E.2d 228 (1974); State v. Wooten, 20 N.C.App. 499, 201 S.E.2d 696 (1974); State......
-
Luttrell v. Hardin
...of error upon appeal to this Court. Huffman v. Lumber Co., 169 N. C. 259 ; Wooten v. Order of Odd Fellows, 176 N. C. 52 ; State v. Green, 187 N. C. 460 ." Hodges v. Wilson, 165 N. C. 323, 81 S. E. 340; Young v. Stewart, 191 N. C. p. 302, 131 S. E. 735. We come now to the main controversy be......