State v. Hanford, 724.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 724.,724. |
| Citation | 194 S.E. 481,212 N.C. 746 |
| Parties | STATE. v. HANFORD. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Alamance County; H. Hoyle Sink, Judge.
Marvin Hanford was convicted of having whisky in his possession for the purpose of sale, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
The defendant was tried at the October special term, 1937, of the superior court of Alamance county on a criminal warrant which was issued by a justice of the peace of said county on a duly verified complaint that "on or about the 3rd day of July, 1937, Marvin Hanford, wilfully and feloniously did have in his possession, illegally, fifteen (15) gallons of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, contrary to the form of the statute and against the peace and dignity of the State."
He was first tried and convicted on said warrant in the general county court of Alamance county. He appealed from the judgment of the general county court to the superior court of Alamance county, in which court the action was tried de novo, as provided by statute.
At the close of the evidence for the State, the defendant moved for judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit. The motion was denied and defendant excepted. No evidence was introduced by the defendant.
The evidence was submitted to the jury, who returned a verdict that the defendant is "guilty of having whiskey in his possession for the purpose of sale."
From judgment on the verdict the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors in the trial and in the judgment.
John J. Henderson, of Burlington, for appellant.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
On July 3, 1937, on the complaint of a police officer of Alamance county, which was duly verified, a justice of the peace of said county issued a search warrant by which the said officer was authorized to search the premises of one Lacey Scott, located on a public road, near the town of Burlington, in said county, for intoxicating liquor alleged to be in the possession of the said Lacey Scott on said premises. After the said warrant had been issued, and before it was served, the officer, without notice to the justice of the peace, and without his authority, inserted in both the complaint and the warrant the name of the defendant, Marvin Hanford. The name of Lacey Scott, which appeared in the complaint and in the warrant, when the warrant was issued by the justice of the peace, was not erased from either the complaint or the warrant.
The officer went to the home of the defendant, Marvin Hanford, and, after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mills, 3
...being or have been committed, and the search warrant should be confined to that particular portion of the premises.' In State v. Hanford, 212 N.C. 746, 194 S.E. 481, 482, the search warrant authorized the officer to search the premises of one Lacey Scott for intoxicating liquor. A back room......
-
State v. Harrison
...and Clifford Harrison occupied the room in the home of the defendant pursuant to a rental contract as was the case in State v. Hanford, 212 N.C. 746, 194 S.E. 481, upon which the defendant relies. Moreover, in the Hanford case, the search warrant only authorized the officer to search the pr......
-
State v. Buchanan, 433
...on 24 June, 1950, within the meaning of G.S. § 18-32. This case is distinguishable in factual situation from the case of State v. Hanford, 212 N.C. 746, 194 S.E. 481, on which defendant relies. It too is distinguishable from State v. Webb, Other assignments of error have been given due atte......
-
State v. Turner, 3
...his premises 'about sundown' on the day of the search was for jury determination. The present case is quite different from State v. Hanford, 212 N.C. 746, 194 S.E. 481, cited by defendant, where nontaxpaid liquor was found in the private room of the defendant's tenant, an area of defendant'......