State v. Rochelle

• Decision Date: 01 November 1911
• Citation: 72 S.E. 481,156 N.C. 641
• Parties: STATE v. ROCHELLE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

72 S.E. 481

156 N.C. 641

STATE v. ROCHELLE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 1, 1911

Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Allen, Judge.

L. S Rochelle was convicted of the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.

V. S Bryant and B. S. Royster, for appellant.

T. W Bickett, Atty. Gen., and Geo. L. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CLARK C.J.

The defendant was convicted of the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor. The first exception is because the court declined to allow him to put in evidence a subpoena duces tecum issued by the state for Wheeler Martin, collector of internal revenue to bring with him a list of all persons in said county who had obtained United States license to sell liquor. It is true, that when a man takes out United States license to sell liquor, under our statute a presumption arises that he is engaged in that business. Rev. § 2060; Vinegar Co. v. Hawn, 149 N.C. 355, 63 S.E. 78. But the fact that he has no such license from the United States government does not raise a presumption that the defendant is not engaged in the illegal sale of liquor. It may well be that the defendant did not consider such license necessary for his purpose, or profitable, or prudent. It costs money and makes evidence against him.

The only other exceptions requiring notice are exceptions 3 and 4 to the charge of the court, as follows:

Exception 3. "If the defendant attempts to prove an alibi, and fail in it, it becomes a circumstance for the jury to consider. They can regard it entirely as unproven, and they can also consider the failure to establish an alibi, if the jury find he has failed in doing so, and give it such force as the jury may deem proper."

Exception 4. "You should carefully consider the evidence offered to establish an alibi because of its liability to abuse, as our Supreme Court says."

In State v. Jaynes, 78 N.C. 504, Bynum, J., said that evidence of an alibi "should be closely scrutinized because of its liability to abuse." His honor therefore was, as he said, simply quoting from a decision of this court. We do not understand him as intimating that failure to prove an alibi was any evidence of guilt. He simply said that evidence of that kind should be closely scrutinized. Indeed his honor in that connection himself fully explained the meaning of the word "scrutinize" as follows: "It simply means that you should cautiously examine...