State v. Hopkins

• Decision Date: 01 March 1911
• Citation: 154 N.C. 622,70 S.E. 394
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. HOPKINS.

70 S.E. 394

154 N.C. 622

STATE.

v.HOPKINS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 1911.

1. Jury (§ 96^*)—Disqualifications.

The object of Revisal 1905. § 1960, disqualifying a juror who has a suit pending and at issue in the court, is to disqualify one who has a suit to be tried at the same term, and one having a case for trial at another term is not disqualified.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Jury, Cent. Dig. § 434; Dec. Dig. § 96.*]

2. Criminal Law (§ 409*)—Evidence—Admissibility.

A conversation between accused and a third person, at the time of the commission of an offense by accused, which proves guilt, may be proved by a witness overhearing the conversation.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 409.*]

3. Criminal Law § 683*)—Evidence—Admissibility.

Where the testimony of the state on a trial for an unlawful sale of liquor related solely to the facts constituting a sale, the things the witness for the state saw and heard between accused and the buyer of the liquor, and declarations of accused or of the buyer, made subsequent to the sale, were incompetent.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1615-1617; Dec. Dig. § 683.*]

4. Criminal Law (§ 37*)—Entrapment—Bab to Prosecution.

That a policeman procured a third person to go to accused's house to purchase whisky, and gave him money to pay for it, is no defense to a prosecution for an illegal sale of liquor made by accused to the third person.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 42; Dec. Dig. § 37.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; G. W. Ward, Judge.

Nelson Hopkins was convicted of selling liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

F. G. James and Harry Skinner, for appellant.

The Attorney General and Geo. L. Jones, for the State.

BROWN, J. In selecting the jury, the defendant challenged one C. T. Munford for having a case pending and at issue before the superior court of Pitt county on the civil issue docket. The court refused to allow this challenge for cause, for the reason that the juror did not have a case pending and at issue at this special December term of criminal court. The ruling of his honor was correct. The object of the statute (Revisal 1905, § 1900) is to disqualify one to serve as a juror who has a suit to be tried at the same term at which his case is to be tried. Those who have suits to be tried at the same term should not be permitted to serve in close relationship to other jurors. If the cause is not at issue at said term, the reason ceases. State v. Spivey, 132 N. C. 989, 43 S. E. 475.

The state introduced one Clark, a policeman, who testified that he procured one Streeter to go to defendant's house to purchase whisky, and gave him a marked dollar bill to pay for it, and went with him. The state permitted Clark to testify to the conversation between Streeter and the defendant, to which defendant excepts. Such evidence does not constitute the ex parte declaration of Streeter, as contended; but it is competent, because it is a conversation of the defendant with Streeter, and tends to prove the guilt of the accused by his own declarations. The evidence tends to prove that Streeter purchased a pint of whisky from the defendant, and paid for it with the marked dollar bill.

The defendant offered in evidence Streeter's later declarations as to what occurred at the conversation...