Title: State v. Leach
Citation: 158 S.E.2d 782, 272 N.C. 733
Docket Number: 510
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 1968

158 S.E.2d 782 (1968) 272 N.C. 733 STATE of North Carolina v. Craven LEACH. No. 510. Supreme Court of North Carolina. February 2, 1968. *784 Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Staff Atty. Ralph A. White, Jr., Raleigh, for the State. Carl C. Churchill, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant. PER CURIAM. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the nontax-paid liquor and the testimony concerning the finding and seizing of the liquor. In the case of State v. Giles, 254 N.C. 499, 119 S.E.2d 394, officers were pursuing a speeding automobile in the nighttime. After apprehending defendant, who had stopped the car and fled on foot, they shone a light in the back of the car and saw cases of liquor between the back seat and the "boot." The Court, holding that the officers had the right to seize the liquor without a warrant and that the evidence obtained thereby was competent, stated: In the instant case, upon objection to admission of the nontax-paid liquor and the evidence relating thereto, the trial court conducted a lengthy voir dire examination, found facts, and denied the motion to suppress. This was proper, as the officer saw and had absolute personal knowledge that there was intoxicating liquor in the automobile, and no search warrant was required to make the search and seizure legal. The trial judge correctly denied defendant's motions for nonsuit. The evidence here was sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the question of constructive possession of nontax-paid whiskey and to support the verdict of the jury. The defendant assigned numerous errors to the charge of the court. However, reading the charge contextually, we find no reasonable cause to believe that the jury was misinformed or misled by the manner in which the law of the case was presented to the jury. State v. Taft, 256 N.C. 441, 124 S.E.2d 169. In the trial below we find no error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. No error.