Case Name: STATE v. MRS. JOHN TURPIN and FRANK SHERRILL
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1932-06-15
Citations: 203 N.C. 11
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. MRS. JOHN TURPIN and FRANK SHERRILL.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 203
Pages: 11–12

Head Matter:
STATE v. MRS. JOHN TURPIN and FRANK SHERRILL.
(Filed 15 June, 1932.)
Criminal Law G e — Evidence of reputation of defendant’s garage for selling liquor held incompetent as hearsay evidence.
In a prosecution for violation of the prohibition laws evidence that the defendant’s garage had the reputation of selling liquor is incompetent as hearsay evidence.
Appeal by defendant, Mrs. John Turpin, from Harding, J., at July-August Term, 1931, of SwaiN.
Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant, and another, with violations of the prohibition laws.
Lee Birchfield, a character witness for Mrs. Turpin, was asked on cross-examination the following question:
“Q. What is the reputation of the defendant’s home in regard to selling liquor? (Objection; overruled; exception.) A. That is the repu tation of that filling station, it bas been liquor. I don’t know I could buy whiskey there for sure, but I have got some reports on the filling-station.”
From an adverse verdict and judgment of six months in jail, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Sea/well for the State.
I. 0. Crawford and Edwards & Leatherwood for defendant.

Opinion:
Stacy, C. J.
The evidence respecting the reputation of defendant's garage for selling liquor was hearsay and should have been excluded. S. v. Springs, 184 N. C., 768, 114 S. E., 851; S. v. Mills, 184 N. C., 694, 114 S. E., 314. The identical question was before the Court in the two cases just cited. Further discussion would only call for a repetition of what was said in these cases.
New trial.