Court Opinion

ID: 9812489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:40:15.549759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:01.838779
License: Public Domain

Walker, J.,
concurring in result: Having with him so large a quantity of liquor in packages of different size and covered over with a lap robe, was sufficient of itself to constitute prima facie evidence of the defendant’s guilty possession. When proof of a certain fact is made prima facie evidence of the main fact to be established, the law does not mean that there is any presumption of guilt thereby created, but that there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury and upon which they may convict if there is no countervailing testimony. It does not shift the burden of proof, but the State is still required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Wig. Ev., sec. 2494 (2); Womble v. Grocery Co., 135 N. C., 474. The case was submitted to the jury in this view of the law, and I am unable to see how any substantial error was committed by the court when the jury were permitted to consider all of the evidence. The mere fact that reference was made to the statute did not prejudice the defendant, when his possession, under the circumstances clearly shown by the evi*646dence and not disputed, was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. He had the full benefit of the doctrine of reasonable doubt upon the whole evidence, which was submitted to the jury, and the case was fairly and correctly tried.