{
  "id": 8624600,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHN E. ELLIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ellis",
  "decision_date": "1936-05-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "166",
  "last_page": "168",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 166"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 O. S., 3411",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 693",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221585
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0693-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S. E., 374",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8603115
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S. E., 891",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626708
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S. E., 916",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 342",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621477
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0342-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 178",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221358
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0178-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S. E., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 S. E., 168",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 648",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653775
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0648-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 S. E., 311",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 769",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11254058
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0769-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 S. E., 846",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658756
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 S. E., 506",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 630",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270144
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0630-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 S. E., 888",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 N. C., 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658668
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/164/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 S. E., 66",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 N. C., 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658827
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/164/0482-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 395,
    "char_count": 6190,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.9216513038138385e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8466538010517215
    },
    "sha256": "adfa979c09eee665083baca6b89e2e4fb62db9b65e699a63ce4ad13cdae82531",
    "simhash": "1:3cdbdf407e48850d",
    "word_count": 1089
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHN E. ELLIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nConceding that C. S., 3379, is still in force in New Hanover County and applicable to all persons, firms, associations, and corporations, other than the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, it is made unlawful by said section for any person to have or to keep in bis possession, for the purpose of sale, any spirituous liquors, and proof of the possession of more than a gallon of such liquors, at any one time, constitutes \"prima facie evidence of the violation of this section.\u201d\nIn the case of S. v. Russell, 164 N. C., 482, 80 S. E., 66, the trial court instructed the jury, under cbs. 819 and 992, Public Laws 1907, making the possession of more than 2% gallons of intoxicating liquors in Meck-lenburg County prima facie evidence of its possession for the purpose of sale, as follows: \u201cThe statutory presumption in this case, to the effect that keeping or having on band or under one\u2019s control more than 2% gallons of intoxicating liquor shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to sell same contrary to law is not binding upon the jury, though the defendant does' not see fit to introduce any testimony or to go on the stand as a witness for himself. The jury is still at liberty to acquit the defendant, if they find bis guilt is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d This instruction was approved and commended for its accuracy and precision, citing in support S. v. Wilkerson, 164 N. C., 431, 79 S. E., 888, and S. v. Barrett, 138 N. C., 630, 50 S. E., 506.\nIt is also held for law in this jurisdiction that the trial court may not direct a verdict for the prosecution in a criminal action, when there is no admission or presumption calling for explanation or reply on the part of the defendant. S. v. Singleton, 183 N. C., 738, 110 S. E., 846; S. v. Hill, 141 N. C., 769, 53 S. E., 311; S. v. Riley, 113 N. C., 648, 18 S. E., 168.\nA prima facie showing carries the issue to the jury and is sufficient to warrant, but does not compel, a conviction. S. v. Russell, supra; S. v. Wilkerson, supra; S. v. Barrett, supra; Speas v. Bank, 188 N. C., 524, 125 S. E., 398. It is only when the prima facie case of the statute is adminiculated by circumstances which point unerringly to the defendant\u2019s guilt, and perforce require his conviction, if believed, that a peremptory instruction is permissible. 5 Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 2495. It was on this theory that the instructions were upheld in S. v. Langley, 209 N. C., 178, and S. v. Rose, 200 N. C., 342, 156 S. E., 916.\nAs against the prima facie case, there comes to the aid of the defendant the common-law \u201cpresumption of innocence,\u201d which goes with him throughout the trial and stands until overcome by proof or an adverse verdict. S. v. Herring, 201 N. C., 543, 160 S. E., 891; S. v. Boswell, 194 N. C., 260, 139 S. E., 374. It is only in rare instances that a verdict may be directed for the prosecution in a criminal case. S. v. Riley, supra.\nThe defendant challenges the constitutionality of the act, ch. 418, sec. 21, Public Laws 1935, under which he was charged and convicted, but it is not after the manner of appellate courts to pass upon constitutional questions, even when properly presented, if there be also present some other ground upon which the case can be decided. In re Parker, 209 N. C., 693.\nFor error in directing the verdict, a new trial must be awarded. It is so ordered.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Bruton for the State.",
      "W. F. J ones for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN E. ELLIS.\n(Filed 20 May, 1936.)\n1. Intoxicating Liquor G d\u2014\nEvidence establishing defendant\u2019s possession of more than a gallon of intoxicating liquor, without other incriminating evidence, is insufficient to support a directed verdict of guilty of possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale under the provisions of C. S., 3379.\n2. Criminal Law I j \u2014 Establishment of prima facie case against defendant will not alone support directed verdict of guilty.\nEvidence establishing certain facts made prima facie evidence of guilt under a statute is not sufficient to support a directed verdict against defendant in a prosecution for violating the statute in the absence of adminicular evidence so aiding the prima facie case that all the evidence, if believed, points unerringly to defendant\u2019s guilt, since, as against the prima facie case, the presumption of innocence stands with defendant, rendering the question of defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the prima facie case a question for the jury.\n3. Appeal and Error A e\u2014\nThe constitutionality of a statute will not be determined on appeal, even when properly presented, when there is also presented some other ground upon which the appeal can be decided.\nAppeal by defendant from Williams, J., at November Term, 1935, of New HaNovee.\nCriminal prosecution, tried upon warrant charging the defendant with unlawfully \u201chaving in his possession, for the purpose of sale, a quantity of intoxicating liquor,\u201d etc., in violation of the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, ch. 418, sec. 21, Public Laws 1935.\nThe record discloses that on 11 October, 1935, the defendant was arrested in the city of Wilmington and had in his Ford coupe at the time 12\u00bd quarts of whiskey. There were two packages in the front of the car; two packages in tbe back under tbe seat, and one pint in a paper sack. When tbe officers informed tbe defendant they bad a search warrant for bis car, be said, \u201cYou need not read it; you have got me.\u201d He also asked tbe officers who reported him. Tbe defendant was alone in bis car.\nTbe defendant offered no evidence, and contended that under cb. 418, Public Laws 1935, which exempts New Hanover County from tbe provisions of tbe Turlington Act, 3 O. S., 3411 (a), et seq., tbe possession of said liquor was not unlawful.\nTbe court instructed tbe jury as follows :\n\u201cTbe court charges you if you find tbe facts to be as tbe evidence tends to show and beyond a reasonable doubt, if you believe tbe evidence, you will return in this case a verdict of guilty.\u201d Exception.\nYerdict: Guilty.\nJudgment: Two years upon tbe roads.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Bruton for the State.\nW. F. J ones for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0166-01",
  "first_page_order": 232,
  "last_page_order": 234
}