State v. Luquire
| Decision Date | 24 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | 241. |
| Citation | 132 S.E. 162,191 N.C. 479 |
| Parties | STATE v. LUQUIRE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Barnhill, Judge.
W. O Luquire was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. No error.
The defendant, W. O. Luquire, was arrested at a blockade distillery on or about December 1, 1925, about the hour of 10:30 o'clock. Deputy Sheriff Joe Lowe, in company with several other officers raided said still near Morrisville, N C., and discovered 4 or 5 men at said still, which was in full operation, but none of the officers present at the still knew the operators or any of those present at said time, all escaping except the defendant, Luquire, and one other. When the cause came on for trial at the December term, 1925, of Wake superior court, the case was continued because same could not be reached and disposed of, and the same was continued to the January term, 1926. The bill of indictment against the defendant was found at the December term, 1925. At the January term, the case upon motion of the solicitor was consolidated with that of Bob Spence; both defendants being tried upon the same state of facts and for the same offense. Both defendants were convicted, and the defendant Luquire, was sentenced for a term of 12 months. Before the trial of the defendant, Luquire, and at the same term of court, a bill of indictment duly signed by the solicitor was drawn and sent to the grand jury against Eugene Mason and Will Guthrie, charging said parties as having engaged in the manufacture of liquors at the same time and place at which the defendant, Luquire, was arrested, and a true bill was returned in said case. The defendant, Luquire, whose name was placed first on the bill of indictment, was the principal witness against said Mason and Guthrie, and was directed by Officer Lowe to appear before the grand jury and testify. During the trial of the defendant, Luquire, it appeared that he had been used as a witness against other persons alleged to have been at the distillery, and defendants' counsel thereupon duly made motion to quash the indictment, and asked that the case against the defendant be dismissed and defendant be discharged, as provided by the Consolidated Statutes, vol. 1, § 3406, and section 3411 (g), vol. 3, C. S. Upon his honor's refusal to grant the motion, defendant in apt time excepted and gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.
J. W. Barbee, of Durham, and F. T. Bennett, of Raleigh, for appellant.
Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
There was ample evidence of the defendant's guilt, and his five exceptions are addressed to the sole question whether he was protected from prosecution by section 3406 of C. S. or 3411 (g) of the Consolidated Statutes Supplement. These sections are as follows:
Section 3406 was enacted in 1913 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Farrell
...is directed against compulsion, and not against voluntary admissions, confessions, or testimony freely given on the trial. State v. Luquire, 191 N.C. 479, 132 S.E. 162. statements, confessions, and testimony voluntarily given on a former trial are received against the accused as his admissi......
-
State v. Love
...immunity granted is merely from prosecution, applicable only to a witness who is required to testify under compulsion. State v. Luquire, 191 N.C. 479, 481, 132 S.E. 162. In the former statute it was a legislative pardon; existing law it may be regarded as a condonation. G.S. s 18-8--C.S. 34......