Case ID: nc_235/html/0226-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "YalektiNE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. FRED T. MILLS.
    (Filed 5 March, 1952.)
    1. Criminal Law § 40a—
    The witness, in reply to a question as to the defendant’s general character, stated that it was good “with the exception of dealing in whiskey.” Held: The answer is not a proper subject of exception, since a witness may voluntarily qualify and explain his character testimony.
    2. Intoxicating Liquor § 9d—
    Evidence in this case held sufficient to support a verdict of guilty of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale.
    Appeal by defendant from Bojbitt, J., and a jury, Regular September 1951 Criminal Term, McDowell.
    Tbe defendant was found guilty by a jury of tbe unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for tbe purpose of sale. All other counts in tbe bill of indictment were disposed of by judgment as of nonsuit.
    
      Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.
    
    
      I. G. Crawford, Robert R. Reynolds, and Lawrence G. Stoker for defendant, appellant.
    
   YalektiNE, J.

A witness for tbe State was asked if be knew tbe general character and reputation of tbe defendant. He replied: “It is good with tbe exception of dealing in whiskey.”

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a witness, who is questioned only as to defendant’s general character, may qualify and explain bis answer. S. v. McLawhorn, 195 N.C. 327, 141 S.E. 883; S. v. Saleeby, 183 N.C. 740, 110 S.E. 844; S. v. Mills, 184 N.C. 694, 114 S.E. 314; S. v. Reagan, 185 N.C. 710, 117 S.E. 1; S. v. Fleming, 194 N.C. 42, 138 S.E. 342; S. v. Pridgen, 194 N.C. 795, 139 S.E. 601; S. v. Butler, 177 N.C. 585, 98 S.E. 821; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, Sec. 114.

There was sufficient evidence to support tbe verdict of guilty upon tbe charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for tbe purpose of sale. S. v. Carlson, 171 N.C. 818, 89 S.E. 30; S. v. Mann, 219 N.C. 212, 13 S.E. 2d 247; S. v. Johnson, 220 N.C. 773, 18 S.E. 2d 358; G.S. 15-173.

Hence, tbe judgment of tbe court below must stand.

No error.