From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Tucker

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1900
37 S.E. 203 (N.C. 1900)

Summary

In Tucker, the court held that it was for the trier of fact to draw or not draw an inference from the fact of possession.

Summary of this case from State v. Higgins

Opinion

(20 November, 1900.)

INDICTMENT — Variance — Allegation and Proof — Evidence — Intoxicating Liquors — Criminal Law.

Where an indictment charges a sale of intoxicating liquors to Will Smith, it is incumbent on the State to prove a sale to him.

INDICTMENT against John Tucker for selling intoxicating liquors without license, heard by Judge Thomas J. Shaw and a jury, at April Term, 1900, of CABARRUS. On the back of the indictment was the following endorsement: Witnesses (540) — Will Smith, J. F. Harris, Jno. Cruse, Will Propst.

From verdict of guilty and judgment, the defendant appealed.

Zeb V. Walser, Attorney-General, for the State.

Montgomery Crowell, for the defendant.


The defendant stands indicted for selling unlawfully and wilfully "to one Will Smith a quantity of spirituous liquors by the measure of a gallon," etc., without license so to sell spirituous liquors. The "case" sent to this Court states that the State's evidence was that the defendant came to town with about four gallons of whiskey, and that "he sold one of the witnesses for the State a gallon" at the price, etc., and offered the remainder for sale to "said witness, or to any other person." The defendant asked the Court to charge that there was no evidence to go to the jury for the conviction of the defendant, which was refused. The Court instructed the jury that, if they believed the evidence, to render a verdict of guilty. There was error. There is no evidence that defendant sold liquor to Will Smith, as alleged in the bill of indictment, "but to one of the witnesses for the State," and there were the names of four witnesses indorsed on the bill. The defendant's plea was not guilty. As the State alleged a sale to Will Smith, it was incumbent on the State to prove a sale to Will Smith. Defendant also moved in arrest, because the State failed to prove a sale to anyone within the statutory limit. S. v. Carpenter, 74 N.C. 230.

Venire de novo.

(541)


Summaries of

State v. Tucker

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1900
37 S.E. 203 (N.C. 1900)

In Tucker, the court held that it was for the trier of fact to draw or not draw an inference from the fact of possession.

Summary of this case from State v. Higgins
Case details for

State v. Tucker

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. TUCKER

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Nov 1, 1900

Citations

37 S.E. 203 (N.C. 1900)
127 N.C. 539

Citing Cases

State v. Higgins

State v. Williams et al, 102 Or. 305, 312-13, 202 P. 429 (1921). The language above from Pomeroy was quoted…

State v. Gortmaker

We find no constitutional infirmity resulting from the selection of the last grand juror from a petit jury…