*1 COURT IN THE SUPREME Beam. State v. tban tbat a distinc- reason, bad sucb special tbe no Legislature exist, material, is not criminal cases should we and tion between civil into its or tbe existence only into motive policy, not inquire do as it did. to legislate its power tbe statute, none, we constitutional objection
There merely question meaning. It is believe, urged. error, of bis was without ruling Judge Ferguson, Tbe Honor, accordingly. affirmed
Affirmed. L.M. BEAM.
STATE v. (Filed December, 1922.) — — Spirituous Intoxicating Liquors Liquors Possession — Evidence— 1. Jury Law. for Questions —Criminal Held,, in tbis case was sufficient to sustain a tbe conviction of having possession spirituous liquors pur- for bis tbe pose for tbe receiving quart sale, and of more tban one thereof within fifteen days time. — Spirituous Liquors Intoxicating Liquors 2. — Evidence—Declarations— Hearsay Evidence. having spirituous liquor posses- Upon of defendant for bis the trial sale, purpose show, tbe on cross- sion for arrest, tbe officer who bad made tbe what tbe son of the- examination defendant ownership whiskey, time, tbe tbe said as to at tbat bad objectionable party, hearsay. being as a of a mere declaration third — Liquors Intoxicating Spirituous Liquors — Evidence—Instructions— Error. Harmless tending to tbat is evidence show tbe defendant’s son was Where culprit, though posses- tbe defendant on trial for tbe tbe real sale, liquor etc., spirituous tbe exclusion tbe of tbe sion of defendant’s implicated act, tbat be was tbe unlawful it, appears is harmless when bis son to do error tbat and bad forbidden introduced at tbe bad been bad been sub- tbe same evidence mitted judge. a correct and clear instruction of under tbe trial tbe — Constitution —Limitation Law Federal of Powers— 4. Constitutional Jury. Courts — Procedure—Indictment—Grand Constitution, providing person tbat tbe Federal “no V of shall Article capital otherwise for a infamous crime answer unless on a be presentment held grand jury” imposed of a is a indictment limitation Government, applies procedure powers tbe Federal in. tbe of courts, to trials tbe and not violation of our State statutes tbe Federal relating Pulliam, ante, in tbe State laws courts. S. v. to our applied. cases, cited like and other FALL TERM, O.]
State *2 Scienter—Guilty 5. Criminal Law —Evidence—Other Knowl-. Offenses — edge Criminal Acts. — Related principle upon The which other offenses he shown to against by defendant, though charged committed law our criminal strictly indictment, applies only construed, in therewith when and they charged are so related with the unlawful act guilty knowledge, as to show inquiry in soienter such is relevant to the the and where the the particular case, time; and not of too remote having possession spirituous liquor defendant is on trial for of for purpose previous sale, years of that he had committed a like offense eleven charged incompetent, to the time of the offense and its admis- sion at the trial constitutes reversible error when there is no evidence tending previous way to show that the offense related to or being Beam, 179 connected with the one for which he was N. relevancy tried. 8. v. cases, applied, competency C., and other cited and by Walker, J. of such discussed J., dissenting. Clark, C.
Appeal J., 1922, of Term, at Spring from McElroy, defendant CLEVELAND. Nash Attorney-General and Assistant Manning
Attorney-General the State. Max Gardner & and 0.
Byburn Hoey defendant. 1922, of Cleveland at March Term, convicted, Tbe defendant was for the spirituous liquors in his possession of Superior Court, thereof within quart more than one receiving of and of sale, appealed such conviction the judgment and from time, fifteen days to this Court. refusal judge’s were taken and 7 exceptions Defendant’s at the conclusion of the State against as of nonsuit a judgment testimony. The State’s of all at the conclusion again testimony, information re- consequence showed if believed, evidence, Moore, Dixon, F. and M. N. J. Dixon, E. W. officers them, ceived Thursday but on before warrant, went search obtaining proper after one mile residence, Beam’s about December), Christmas, (22 The search was made County. in Cleveland Grover, half from and a in front slowly along As the officers drove that day. 3 m. of p. about shop of a little coming three men out noticed house, they defendant’s hip each something pocket men was putting those one of building, railroad, the house to the went out behind This man he came out. Mountain. "What he was putting Kings direction going Moore the man with stopped Officer bottles. to be appeared
his pocket contained two they pints found that railroad and the bottles found on the premises «that were like the bottles and looked liquor, the defendant. COURT. IN THE SUPREME out of coming one of the three men
The Beam was got pints officer Moore the two at tbe time that building shop about from the defendant’s building fifty yards This whiskey. shop officers, seeing Beam, The son of the defendant Audie house. in there. something smashing in the heard shop ran back went to the and when he reached the shop, Officer E. W. Dixon then Beam bottles out of the window breaking door Audie “I with ran in whiskey. side of the house. The bottles filled were him ran a big after and he out of the window and field. jumped across As he ran his arms the bottles against he had full and would throw Dixon testified. Beam also bottles ground them,” Young break had in his pocket. continuing search, something eighteen found like officers, *3 Be- on the
twenty gallons liquor, apparently concealed, premises. broken, stated, they sides the bottles that were above found in the which was nearer the house than the some one barn, shop, jars, of which in it. there were bottles shop had covered and hid. liquor up The been hollowed out into a trench ground nearby plank had and a was that had been turned back and a it; is, ground over hollow thus place and in it were some of the bottles. Just made, above the shop they found a beside a with a keg, lying stump, it, few briers over that con- tained about fifteen At the defendant’s gallons. sawmill, about two hundred from the found some yards house, they large empty kegs which had had in them. also whiskey They five-gallon demijohns. found two There had been in them and tracks them liquor about appeared to have been made the before. night J. It is manifest, think, we that there was sufficient evi- 'WalkeR,
dence to be submitted to the as to the defendant’s jury, guilt upon charge contained the indictment or warrant. 1 was to the exclusion of an answer Exception to a question put by counsel to officer E. "W".Dixon on his defendant’s cross-examination: Beam tell whose you “Did Audie that was whiskey right at the time him?” arrested The State you objected objection and the If Beam himself had sustained. Audie been on the exclusion of would have been question error, the answer to but Audie Beam was this was a not on mere trial; consequently, declaration of a third party, and hearsay. three, four, five are untenable.
Exceptions They relate to testi- the defendant'that he had mony by son, offered forbidden his Audie culprit, was the real to deal in Beam, his, who liquor on defendant’s, of selling liquor and that instead premises, himself, keeping he such protested illegal had traffic sale, and very positively FALL TEEM, N. 0.]
State in the part it. These do not exceptions appear very clearly forbidden as to what of the record where are first noticed, especially court to be heard jury, evidence of this kind was permitted by of the upon charge Judge MeElroy, appears close examination to, that the for their consideration and evidence was submitted It with it. proper given full instruction connection quite at although rejected admitted, least, substantially by court, first. No harm or has therefore been suffered the defend- prejudice ant in connection with this testimony. to the because there was exceptions judgment, verdict and
presentment shown, force, without indictment, as we have are, as Article Y of the Federal It Constitution does reads apply. follows: “No shall person be held to answer for a or otherwise capital infamous crime unless on presentment grand or indictment of a jury.” It applies to the only appear Federal courts and their as will procedure, by the authorities hereinafter cited when this will be further question considered.” taken to the Ham- admission of evidence that J. P:
Exception from the defendant about bright bought whiskey years had eleven before him for a The State contended that quart. $1 and had paid limit of the statute is admissible as previous two-year sales had sustaining allegation circumstance years for the of sale within the two possession is, limit. This the evidence be as it true, yet incompetent, another of the witness alleged ground, is, J. P. related to a transaction too remote of time Hambright *4 in question so connected with the transaction now for it to be evidence of the of the defendant that the knowledge kept in for or to show his or intent of if he did sale, disposing it, so, motive further, because the sale relevancy alleged which in Hambright’s referred to unconnected the totally with Beam, for which case. offense the defendant indicted this S. v. and authorities C., 768, infra. very S. v. Murphy, N. C., is, upon question, The case of Ashe, the illuminating one, opinion being by Justice instructive large of criminal cases many years experience who had for trial learned that branch of bar, profoundly legal when at the case, reviewing In after several of the Murphy supra, science. England, in this and in he said: “It is leading country cases decided of law evidence of one offense cannot a fundamental principle prove a defendant that he was of guilty evidence given to find to this any exception another. have been unable well estab "W"e in those cases where evidence of offenses rule, except independent lished OOUBT. IN THE SUPBEME certain upon illustrate the facts explain been admitted in the offense investigation as where founded, are indictments ammo, intent, design, or guilty necessary prove quo becomes other prove it has been held admissible etc. In such cases knowledge, for passing as for indictments instance, like character, offenses time, about same defendant, fact that money, counterfeit uniformly has kind, of like been money counterfeit passed had knowledge. So, scienter or guilty to show the to be admissible held subsequent letters threatening letter, prior sending for charge received in threatened have been person from the defendant and intent of the meaning particular letter, of the evidence, explanatory P., Boucher, 4 & 562.” Rex v. C. indictment found. which the case, in that he further stated involved illustrating principle And as knowing stolen them to goods, receiving that on indictments like allowed to several acts of prove prosecutor stolen, knowledge therefrom a showing guilty the view of character, with Law, Cr. sec. “But as was of the defendant. Whar. the part Ashe, said Justice “there should be some evi author,” suggested by them.” a link or connection between showing dence Davis, 6 also this Court in the P., 117, approved by C. & Rex case, on the trial of an indictment that, supra, appeared Murphy showing- was admitted for the evidence goods, stolen receiving found, that other at the same goods knowledge guilty n although time, stolen, were were defendant, house in the then before whom pending. judge an indictment subject All is upon. “A line not fixed evidence particular said: it was tried is no the other articles excluding scienter. There a view to the with is, That go further.” you I do not think found. But knowledge to show the guilty was admissible evidence not to confound the important prin “It purpose. for no other classes of cases rest. On the one hand it the two ciples upon scienter, crime to prove of a distinct produce admissible of circumstantial evidence or to exhibit a chain make out the res gestee, other, necessary On the it is charged. to the act guilt respect it, these and to exclude when exceptions, limit the evidence to strictly Law, scope.” fall their Whar. Or. within legitimately it does sec. another; yet, be more to commit likely a crime
One who commits nor tend to prove not prove another, another, does one crime logically, them that proof of one tends to a relation between is such unless *5 illegal is exists, it and mani- a relation such other. Unless prove charged is with crime specific a man who to require festly unfair crimes that other the State a defense to prepare the indictment FALL TEEM, N. O.] charged in tbe but wbicb are not Mm, to attempt prove against
may in all cases enforced strictly should, therefore, bill. Tbe rule general only ap- rule exceptions. there are However, where applicable. are proved and that offered to be charged cases offense plies to where the investigation under subject-matter distinct. It where the does not apply continuous stages or is of that it consist of several may such nature is all transaction. Evidence which relevant acts, constituting one is inadmissible to the indictment not made by issue raised the plea guilty it the defendant prove reason of the fact tends to another than that indictment. Such evidence crime charged its crime, but because of not because it of the other received, proof show cannot relevancy prosecution trial. While the charge upon the crime separate bearing upon and isolated or facts crimes, under connected with investigation, it show all the circumstances may light if in it has to other particular crime, doing bring even so offenses. 10 E. C. sec. 110. L., p. 940, as well state the may just prin-
As this is an we important question, which are qualifications perti- rule some of cipal exceptions with a man is trial put upon nent here. The rule is that when general which shows all, one he is to be offense, convicted, circum- ordinary that he is of that offense under guilty alone, that, life- a score of other offenses his of his of one or stances, proof guilt his upon unconnected with that for which he time, wholly put must be excluded. It is to be not to raise a proper presumption deemed one guilt ground that, having crime, depravity committed may It easier it he would commit another. likely makes exhibits if it is known that he has com- of one crime guilty a person believe character; but the character, or, indeed, similar mitted one of It lead justice apparent. might in courts of of such rule injustice of other acts charge by proof made particular to convictions offenses uniting and to evidence of several it, in no connected with way one. evidence of other crimes single Again, for a conviction produce of which the indictment charges gives to meet the the defendant compels variety raises a defense," him confuses information, him no imme- attention of the from the one jury diverts and thus issues, been a knave on showing it, and, by before diately injustice cause to be prejudice creates occasions, criminal, cases, in all rule, to a broader civil According him. done issue; and it is said that to the point be confined must the evidence strictly than in stronger is even civil cases of necessity cases criminal offense, with an charged a prisoner for where rule, enforcing him that the facts laid before the importance utmost subject- the transaction which forms the exclusively consist *6 IN THE COURT. SUPREME State alone he can ex- relating thereto, tbe indictment and matters be relates, has been ’said to come to answer. What pected prepared course, system; to the common-law under civil law somewhat different method is and much is claimed for it as a mode pursued, The rule of extraneous achieving justice. against admitting proof is In however, crimes to certain or subject, qualifications exceptions. is making a defendant it for the to- proof against competent prosecution all relevant facts and circumstances which tend to estab- put evidence lish of the constitutive elements of the crime of which the defendant any though accused the case on even such facts and circumstances that the defendant committed other crimes. So tend prove other the commission of offenses is admissible covering evidence when or are so linked of time or circumstances that two more crimes one cannot be shown without the other. for the fully proving Thus, a defendant of the of one article it is purpose proving guilty larceny stole other articles on that he the same but proper prove expedition, it is not he stole on an prove independent what occasion. It proper degree relevancy is often difficult to determine the which entitles the showing to introduce evidence the commission prosecution of other of the with reference to difficulty but much such evidence dis- crimes, considered strictly upon ground the evidence of its appears it is sought introduced, for which to be relevancy regard- show may incidentally less of the fact .that it the commission of some In not ought offense. other to be words, difficulty other more than of such evidence there is deciding relevancy when the cir- of some other offense appearing cumstance involved. The mere of time within which two offenses may be proximity committed does make of the other. part one Immediateness is necessarily not 'the There must be a causal relation test, relevancy. logical true but or natural connection between the two or must acts, form parts of transaction. constitutes a but one Where one offense element necessary thereof. 8 R. C. proof may 198, be made another, L., p. sec. 197. scienter, or animo state, quo mental constitutes an Whenever ingre- charged, offense evidence admissible of acts, conduct, dient tend of the accused which to establish such declarations knowledge, the fact notwithstanding or motive intention, may disclose a this is also subject law, qualifications crime different sec. 8 R. C. L., p. 201, noted. already will be principle found exposition
A very good Corpus in the corresponds, main, with that of 589, 590, Juris, just though Procedure not in cited, Law and all particu Cyclopedia the nature of “Where is as follows: crime such lars. It admissible proved, that, must knowledge show guilty m FALL TEEM, 0.] «. Beam. another time and not too place remote, attempted accused committed, commit, words, crime similar to that charged. where guilt cannot predicated mere commission of an act, guilty *7 knowledge be of proved by offenses; evidence in similar complicity but where a guilty knowledge is from character presumed the of criminal act, evidence of other crimes be received. Evidence of other crimes similar to that is charged relevant and admissible when it or shows, tends to criminal intent is show, particular neces sary constitute the crime charged. fact Any proves, or tends is prove, intent particular competent, cannot be excluded because it incidentally proves an crime. independent "Where the ques is tion whether certain act was intentional or was done accident or mistake, evidence to show that accused had committed intentionally similar acts is relevant to show the intent. On the hand, other where the nature of the offense is such that its commission as proof charged of carries with it an criminal implication presumption or of intent, evi dence of the perpetration attempted or of perpetration other like offenses is thereof be While, inadmissible. admissible to show the similar offenses must be related in kind to the in intent, one question as to illustrate the of question intent, must have been suffi done in ciently near, of to the act point time, charged fairly as to throw S., 180 some light Prettyman intent.” in question And v. U. c., Federal Reporter, (S. 30 10 Ct. Court of Appeals, 384); Court stated very with the or fully rule, exception qualification, applicable in eases of this kind, motive, where knowledge, ingredient. intent an It was said “The there: court over the below, objection of the defend introduction as to ants; permitted testimony acts other many than in the indictment in those order to alleged prove the intent of the in doing things accused which are charged be criminal. The established rule that acts not thoroughly charged in an indictment cannot proved, among because no reasons, testimony pertinent charged unless relate to matters the indictment, and as to which accused,, issue formed plea guilty, and because the as notice other act would be offered* to meet it. But to this general not be rule prepared could where the intent with important exception, least one which an act has been becomes important, done charged to criminal it neces within certain then, proof is in this sarily case, limits, similar acts admissible order to show the intent of the accused is with which the however, done. think, We act the indictment charged that such when were only sufficiently similar can be done proved acts near, to the act some time, charged fairly throw light similar intent; when the acts are so related in question kind to 47—184 IN THE SUPREME
738 COURT. v. Beam. intent; the similar question as to illustrate the when charged the one nature, closely acts acts same related to the general are fact when,-in arose; act transactions out of which the criminal alleged the similar acts are whom fact, acts of accused person 264; Molineux, Y., 61 168 N. particular proof directed. v. People Mechanics, 62 E., 286; 193; L. R. Penn. Mut. Ins. Co. v. A., Life etc., Bank, 72 19 L. R. 3 Fed., 422; A., 33, 70; C. C. 38 Green A., 286; leaf on 1 1 Evidence, 16; Evidence, 142; Wigmore chs. Jones on ch. Evidence, States, Ct., 302; ch. 150 U. 14 S., 57; Sup. Moore United States, Ed., 37 26; 996; L. Ed., Pet., 360; Wood v. United L. 987.” we with their were considered principles stated, limitations, malicious Cartwright, being 174 N. an action for Gray C., 49, stealing with
prosecution, having charged plaintiff also here, to which we also refer as cow, authority applicable case Beam, to S. v. N. C., *8 408, it is said: where Cyc.,
This is also considered question fully that must be guilty knowledge the crime is such the nature of “Where at time place is to that another and prove admissible evidence proved, to commit a crime the committed or attempted not remote accused too that crimes similar to that Evidence of other charged. similar show, when it or tends to shows, admissible is relevant and charged is to constitute the crime necessary criminal intent which particular the particular or tends to proves, prove, fact which charged. Any incidentally be because it and cannot excluded competent, is intent n proves is question Where the whether certain crime. independent evidence to show that the accused in- accidental, or intentional- was .act is relevant to the similar acts before show intent. committed tentionally murder, charged, in the crime as is an element malice also, where :So, like, malicious arson, mischief, and the to kill, intent assault .with is the accused admitted show by similar act of another .evidence the commission the prompting motive of to show the Evidence malice. it also shows the notwithstanding com- and admissible is relevant crime similar crime of a or dissimilar of another accused the mission that the crime was com- charged shown be Thus character. or to concealing crime, prevent another the of the purpose mitted for But of another crime. evidence of another convicted being from accused which the with that is on accused no connection has which crime, for motive, is relevant cannot be prove therefore the motive. Where crime charged of proving guise the under introduced action, criminal evidence crimes of system or plan part -of .a and admissible relevant to show the in character similar or to it near that the act accused, charged was not knowledge 'intent FALL N. TERM, 0.]
State v. Beam. the result of accident or inadvertence. This rule is often where applied the crime charged one of a series of swindles, involving other crimes a fraudulent for the intent, purpose of this intent.” showing as seems to be question not, testimony of supposed, Hambright harmless, all the authorities stated this kind of is, contrary, very harmful to the often a conviction, calculated secure when defendant may innocent, for this cases, the rule reason, other, admitting it, some should be strictly and the evidence enforced, should be excluded where it does not relate a transaction near commission of the offense time, so related to it as to question throw light upon guilt.
The defendant’s counsel this Court moved to arrest judgment because the tried a warrant from the recorder’s court without been sent bill to and returned grand jury. They cite a case from Court, the United States Supreme claim authority for their The first ten amendments to the position. however, Federal are Constitution, limitations power to, only. Federal Government They not, do were never intended limit power states. individual With us the law has been settled present contention adversely of the defendant in a number of cases. S. 411; C., 738; 164 N. Hyman, S. 138 N. C., Lytle, Co., S. v. Publishing C., and the recent case of S. v. Pulliam, ante, 681, from Forsyth County. It is not necessary, said, view what already to consider exceptions to the charge court, they may again presented, nor will we discuss the other exceptions, being useless to do so same reason. in admitting
There error Hambright’s which entitles *9 defendant to trial. another
New trial. The in this J., dissenting: case was such that if Clark, believed the could not have jury found verdict other than as guilty, the opinion-in-chief intimates. When the officerswent to the defend- up ant’s the house found defendant and two others they out of the running 50 from shop building yards defendant’s house. His ran son back and smashing found him bottles on the side the house. bottles These were filled with When the officers he whiskey. approached jumped out his window and ran with arms full bottles which he threw on the break ground to them. He also had bottles in pockets. The officers continued the search and 18 to 20 found con- gallons liquor on the cealed defendant’s the premises shop. They behind also found COURT. IN THE SUPREME
740 one shop, jars, the some the house than was nearer barn, in tbe bottles covered there were found shop it. In the had liquor of which out into a trench been hollowed nearby had ground and hid. The up turned back and a the had been it; ground that plank is, and over put whiskey. other bottles and in it were found thus place made, hollow stump with lying found a beside keg the the officers shop Just above At defendant’s 15 gallons. contained about briars over that few large empty from the also found house, they about 200 sawmill, yards in which demijohns two 5 them, gallon and kegs whiskey which had been made the night to have been and tracks liquor, appearing had before. than otherwise convict could do this evidence the On distinguished but the counsel were several exceptions, There
defendant. on which he could only ground stated that frankly by On examination of witnesses the following: new trial was ask for a character, the sheriff testified general as to the defendant’s the State liquor was that he was a defendant reputation that the general but did The objected, To this the defendant not except. handler. sheriff in that' deputy E. testified that he Dixon, J. sheriff, deputy was “nothing L. but knew reputation, that he knew M. Beam’s community, That is his him that he dealt in except whiskey. reputation.” objection exception. this there "When asked he knew To was from the he stated J. P. liquor defendant, one who had that bought stand, being put who was on the Hambright had, present. Hambright testified that he lived little two miles from the over that he him and him paid $1. there one time from That was got objected that years ago. about record stated n testimony Attorney- that On the excepted. argument here excepted to; General filed a letter from the solicitor that this was not prisoner’s not settled but counsel by judge, by that case was it inadvertent signed and he had statement himself, therein but that in fact no has exception been entered. exception made, judge, settled the defendant’s The case was not counsel the exception a matter of fact taken, stated Court must Chaffin, C., it to be correct. S. The defendant’s take strenuously‘that such error, counsel contends it was irrelevant, too remote and error because tended to only prove nothing. all
It settled this and other courts that long an error is a new trial when it that it grant apparent not sufficient to could not have contributed to the verdict. is so overwhelming
The evidence complete defendant was *10 in of largely the continuous violation the statute that it engaged could result that the witness affected the stated that he possibly have had FALL TEEM, 1922. 741- 0.]
State a bought of quart from tbe defendant 8 before. sheriff liquor years Tbe had just testified that he knew the of the and that reputation he was a handler of liquor, sheriff had testified to the deputy same. To neither of these statements was taken. The any exception fact that stated that he a from Hambright had gotten quart liquor way 8 some in years before no conceivable could have affected the verdict the evidence upon above stated. It was incompetent and irrelevant harmless, because too Its remote. admission was for if he had testified that he had bought no from the defendant liquor could not have procured acquittal face of the overwhelming proof, the fact that and( he had a bought quart years before could not have in any way testimony added to the force of the uncontradicted of de- fendant’s guilt.
If the witness had been asked and stated that the defendant was born in that or that he was over county, years age, fifty similar it would have matter, been equally incompetent would had no effect more the verdict than the statement that upon the witness years had bought quart of from the defendant 8 The liquor before. verdict, admission of such as that would not have vitiated neither should this evidence of a matter equally irrelevant and harmless. in this law was enacted
The referendum to prohibition been full force here So people years ago, ever since. convinced were the whole that the traffic in people country was to the detriment amendment to the public Constitution of the United both houses of adopted by Congress States and ratified the 48 states of this A out of Union. law which has so after solemnly long enacted so and which so discussion, ex- clearly presses people, will should be enforced an effective manner. The sole function of the courts to so construe and. execute the law that it may effectuate the desired. remedy known that the beneficial result of universally
It the statute has crime; the reduction only by volume of been demonstrated a sober efficiency population, the increased but billions of dollars drinking once devoted to purposes paying larger worth real estate decrease in the great return under new uses. number arrested and other misdemeanors and in for drunkenness population of workhouses; the fewer'demands made for relief to charitable jails smaller number of alcoholic patients entered organizations; public other results and a thousand demonstrate the wisdom of this hospitals, so has been placed by overwhelming in the majority enactment this act but for Indeed, operation law. automobiles organic The universal popularity prohibition not be feasible. would among from who have increased business in tradesmen, profited retail furnish- *11 IN THE COURT. 742 SUPREME Beam. them, is deprived those ing formerly the of existence to necessities further as to of the statute. advantages the of the frank enforcement
Every requires consideration, therefore, error law when formal and that mere plainly requires it, evidence nullify a serious which cannot affect the result be permitted land. trial for law the such crime violation fundamental not it is could in the trial which apparent When occurs error other this and all has been held result, uniformly have it affected in substantial “Where a case tried disregarded. courts that it will do not entitle prejudicial technical errors not law, accordance with Bank, N. C., 155 Savings a reversal.” Alexander v. losing party 110 134. 124; Brantley, Hulse v. N. C., would harmless where a reversal “Technical errors will be considered C., Holloman, 132. 163 N.
not result in a different verdict.” McKeel v. all which result upon depends Where the essential facts error will not for formal passed upon by court jury, appellate Rich 149 new trial. v. N. 37. grant Morisey, C., v. Bar must be Penland prejudicial.” “Error to warrant reversal Screws, nard, 545; v. 378; Huntly, C., 146 v. 27 N. Butts N. C., Ratliff Mills, 140 N. Harvell 458; Mills v. Cotton C., 215; Hosiery C., 95 N. Wellons, 124; Co., C., Steeley v. 163 N. 258; 154 N. Holt v. C., Lumber ibid., Gibson, Co., N. 27; Brogden v. Lumber v. C., harm “Error hut there must be reverse, alone not sufficient and if there is fails.” none, exception party excepts, appears who Co., R., 249; C., 272; v. R. 165 N. v. 151 N. C., Mfg. Carter Young Co., 163 Barker Ins. C., v. “It is will not well settled that the Court review Supreme ruling not affect the injuriously or of the court does own, below, Nissen v. Min ruling even erroneous.” complaining party, Co., 104 N. ing C., 309. Court are uniform numerous, in this
Indeed, the decisions that the of a trial is ascertain- object sound principle based this case was whether issue, party- ment the truth dealing spirituous liquors contrary law, charged was guilty this opinions upon there can be no two evidence. question are uniform to the In in other courts same effect. decisions Hessenius, 165 it was held that the admission irrele^ 415, v. Iowa, S. not which could affect the result testimony, incompetent vant does immaterial, justify have been excluded which should new trial. 549, was held Utah, Court, appeal, v. Chaman, In S. to defects not regard affecting without substantial give judgment
will rights. TERM, 1922. FALL
N. O.] State State, 10 beld: tbe legal Okla. it was “Where Woody Cr., In guilty, in a shows that a defendant case conclusively conclusion, ordi could arrive rationally where rejection court in the errors committed the trial introduction nary and will not reversal.” immaterial, justify of evidence are *12 in all which should such govern case the court laid down the principle is a proved guilty trials follows: “Where it is that clearly a charged, ap conviction not be unless it affirmatively should reversed from the record that ‘of some substan deprived the defendant was pears tial to his trial.” right, injury, upon the Pruett, v. 22 N. it is “The admission of item 223,
In S. held: M., is is inadmissible, of evidence which which immaterial, technically it in of the defendant guilt where no reflects or innocence way is to reverse a cannot not sufficient cause prejudicial him, judgment.” Gardner, 96 it is held: “Errors in ruling
In v. Minn., S. in and which can accused, not result prejudice do trial, are sufficient basis affect the result not way in no reasonable Nelson, S. v. prosecution,” citing a new trial criminal for granting other cases. Minn., 141, and Owen, 154 which should obtain Mich., 571, v. People principle “A not be reversed for error in laid conviction should thus down: should rendered where a have been
admitting guilty verdict testimony the case here. exactly without admission.” That laid down as which should obtain thus The universal principle 36: the Court- Ill., v. “Where Hoge People, law indisputable overwhelming against' so the evidence can see from the record that had the been in criminal offense, tried him, it will not still have found they must correctly structed for mere error instruction. For reverse conviction judgment admitting testi should not be reversed for same a conviction reason that a verdict guilty it is evident perfectly without which mony been have rendered.” matter, all the courts this ruling states the uniform This where evidence admitted could to this case entirely applicable evidence of the defendant’s overwhelming have reversed possibly of a nation-wide and constitu- matter of violation in a and that guilt, all possible question, was defendant, beyond provision, tional violating. engaged habitually proven here, applicable are for it especially and principles above cases objected pertinent except remembered must be Other- probative remote .had effect. it was too the fact that competent. perfectly it'was wise THE IN SUPREME COURT.
State Even
tbe last two volumes of our Reports there are no less than 9
eases
enforcing
wholesome doctrine that an error will not
justify
reversal unless it
that it
affected the
appears
may have
result: Rankin
Oates,
Co., ibid.,
v.
Newton,
183 N.
520;
v. Lumber
C.,
616; Newton v.
Ledford
Lines, ibid.,
In this last case down the sound p. principle as follows: unmistakable “When the aid of this Court is in language, a new the motion for grant voked the same will be carefully and will be denied unless the weighed by us, merits are made clearly Courts do not appear. lightly grant reversals, or set aside verdicts, upon grounds which show the error to alleged harmless, where the *13 could appellant have sustained no from it.’ injury There should be, like a least, something treatment of practical the motion to reverse, and it should not be granted to subserve except the real ends of substantial The motion justice. should be meritorious and not based upon merely trivial errors manifestly committed without prejudice. Reasons for attaching great importance to small and innocuous deviations from cor rect principles have long ceased to have that and have become effect The law will not now a obsolete. do vain and useless thing. of an for a new trial application foundation is the allegation of injustice the motion is for relief. Unless, therefore, some wrong has been suffered, nothing there to be relieved against. The injury must be tangible, theoretical For positive merely. instance, simple fact of defeat is for it injurious, wounds the feelings, but this alone is not sufficient for a new trial. ground It does not necessarily involve loss of and without any kind, or the loss, probability loss, there can nobe new trial. The asks complaining party for for redress, the resto first been ration of which have rights infringed and then taken away. then, probability There must be, repairing injury, otherwise the Court would be but the interference of nugatory. There must be a placing reasonable who asks prospect party for a new trial a than the one which he better position occupies by the verdict.” For and clear there is reasoning this valuable cited authorities, numerous - author of the adds opinion and to which the this: “Surely when this is both sensible and just, rule, applied the facts in hand TEEM, N. FALL 745 0.] Sparks. State v. 'a trial nothing gained by granting new for the reason stated it defendant, considered, be nnwise would, practically so, do so far as it relates to motion, this which it ground upon is without merit.” This based, any genuine case, applies present for the same evidence, when the cause is again, tried with the omission evidence as 8 purchase quart years before, admission of which is the only on, error relied the result could not be changed. Hairston, v.S. C.,N. was held that error in the
exclusion of is not ground trial new when it appears that it was harmless. To same in 181 N. C. are Cotton purport Mills v. Mills, Allen, Hosiery ibid., C., 33; 56; Smith Cotton Fisheries, ibid., 151, and other cases. we consider the
When of enforcement importance of this law, which placed it is Constitution, doubly new necessary that trials granted shall not he it is when apparent complained error of, when not on a new repeated would not change the result.
The defendant has been twice convicted—before the recorder’s court and on appeal Court. There is Superior nothing that requires that he should still another trial.
STATE v. SOL SPARKS.
(Filed December, 1922.) Expression Opinion Statutes—Appeal oí Court’s Instructions — — Intoxicating Liquors Spirituous Liquors. Error — — violating prohibition laws, trial Where our has has guilt, judge, charge jury, his not admitted trial the witness, to. guilty upon assumed that he was the evidence of State’s expression fully judge opinion an or of his whether a fact has been sufficiently proven, S., *14 and constitutes reversible C. error. 2. Same. acquitted Where the has verdict indicted violating prohibition charging laws our under the count an unlawful sale intoxicating liquors, him of convicted unlawful sale, possession opinion expression for the of his judge trial evidence that defendant had made sale, applies charging also unlawful to' the count the unlawful that he had the possession purposes sale, for the constitutes reversible error.
Appeal J., at from Bryson, February Term, YADKIN.