State v. Harrelson

Decision Date06 March 1957
Docket NumberNo. 145,145
Citation96 S.E.2d 867,245 N.C. 604
PartiesSTATE, v. Gladys HARRELSON and W. C. Jones.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Atty. Gen. George B. Patton, Asst. Atty. Gen. Claude L. Love, for the State.

Harvey A. Jonas, Jr., C. E. Leatherman, Lincolnton, for defendants appellants.

WINBORNE, Chief Justice.

The assignments of error, based upon exceptions to denial of motions of defendants for judgment as of nonsuit, appear to be well taken. The evidence offered upon the trial in Superior Court is insufficient to support a verdict of guilty as to either defendant on either count. State v. Webb, 233 N.C. 382, 64 S.E.2d 268; State v. McLamb, 236 N.C. 287, 72 S.E.2d 656.

In this State it is unlawful for any person to possess any intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. G.S. § 18-2. Defendants are charged with violation of this statute. Their pleas of not guilty put in issue every element of the offense charged. State v. Webb, supra, and cases cited. See also State v. McLamb, supra.

(The Attorney General calls attention to the fact that the contents of the containers is described in evidence merely as 'white liquor '). See State v. Tillery, 243 N.C. 706, 92 S.E.2d 64; State v. Wolf, 230 N.C. 267, 52 S.E.2d 920.

Possession, within the meaning of the above statute, may be either actual or constructive. State v. Lee, 164 N.C. 533, 80 S.E. 405; State v. Meyers, 190 N.C. 239, 129 S.E. 600; State v. Harvey, 228 N.C. 62, 44 S.E.2d 472; State v. Hendrick, 232 N.C. 447, 61 S.E.2d 349; State v. Webb, supra, State v. McLamb, supra.

In the Meyers case [190 N.C. 239, 129 S.E. 602], supra, it is stated 'If the liquor was within the power of the defendant, in such a sense that he could and did command its use, the possession was as complete within the meaning of the statute as if possession had been actual.'

In the light of these principles, applied to the evidence in hand, whether liquor found in the trap at the trash pile belonged to either defendant, or was in his or her possession, is purely speculative, and, hence, insufficient to support a verdict of guilty of possession of intoxicating liquor.

Moreover, the possession of a quantity of gin less than one gallon in the home of defendants raises no presumption that it is possessed for the purpose of sale. Hence the possession of the designated quantity of beer and of the gin is not a circumstance sufficient to be considered by the jury in connection with the charge of illegal possession of beer and gin.

G.S. § 18-32, subd. 4, makes the possession of more than five gallons of malt liquors at any one time prina facie evidence that the possession is for the purpose of sale. But the evidence in the instant case is that the quantity of beer found in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Glenn
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 4 Noviembre 1959
    ...233 N.C. 382, 64 S.E.2d 268; State v. McLamb, 236 N.C. 287, 72 S.E.2d 656; State v. Wooten, 239 N.C. 117,79 S.E.2d 254; State v. Harrelson, 245 N.C. 604, 96 S.E.2d 867. In the Wooten case, supra [239 N.C. 117, 79 S.E.2d 255], opinion by Ervin, J., it is said: 'The testimony for the State is......
  • State v. May
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 19 Marzo 1958
    ...with the hope that hereafter warrants and bills of indictment may be drawn to fit the offenses intended to be charged. State v. Harrelson, 245 N.C. 604, 96 S.E.2d 867; State v. Poe, 245 N.C. 402, 96 S.E.2d 5; State v. Tillery, 243 N.C. 706, 92 S.E.2d 64; State v. Ritchie, 243 N.C. 182, 90 S......
  • State v. Lamb Hicks
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 1 Septiembre 2023
    ...(2021). 32 This Court has long held that speculative evidence is insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. E.g., State v. Harrelson, 245 N.C. 604, 607 (1957); State v. White, 271 N.C. 391, 395 (1967); see State v. Taylor, 362 N.C. 514, 526 (2008); State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Cooper,......
  • State v. Guffey, 2
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 21 Septiembre 1960
    ...Court based its order activating the suspended sentence no longer existed. State v. Perryman, 216 N.C. 30, 3 S.E.2d 285; State v. Harrelson, 245 N.C. 604, 96 S.E.2d 867; State v. Glenn, 251 N.C. 160, 110 S.E.2d In light of the facts disclosed by the record herein, and our decision in this c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT