{
  "id": 11301416,
  "name": "STATE v. HILLIARD PENRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Penry",
  "decision_date": "1941-10-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "248",
  "last_page": "249",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 N.C. 248"
    }
  ],
  "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": "11 S. E., 155",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 N. C., 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619952
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/218/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 S. E., 920",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N. C., 564",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631973
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0564-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 S. E., 285",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627536
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0020-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S. E., 330",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0788-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 2762,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.503,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8217516912720718e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7193054498544124
    },
    "sha256": "e830115411bf2aa7d93b5268f735c3cd6ff68474c640ba84dbfe58f395eaa156",
    "simhash": "1:6badc55aaaf6389d",
    "word_count": 461
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:04.432821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HILLIARD PENRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DeviN, J.\nAn examination of the evidence upon which the State relied for conviction leads us to the conclusion that the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit, interposed at the close of the State\u2019s evidence, should have been allowed.\nThe testimony offered by the State tended to show that upon a search of defendant\u2019s house no intoxicating liquor was discovered. Only the smell of liquor remained in some empty jars. In a field some 200 yards from defendant\u2019s home and on land belonging to another were found fifty-two pints of whiskey concealed. There were a number of houses near this spot, several of them nearer than defendant\u2019s, and three paths traversed the vicinity. It was testified that down below the defendant\u2019s home, near an old house, were found \u25a0 some footprints that led in the direction of the field. By whom the tracks were made did not appear. In the language of the State\u2019s witness, \u201cFolks live all around this place and two or three paths through there.\u201d\nThe State\u2019s case fails at the first hurdle. Evidence is lacking to show possession of intoxicating liquor, either actual or constructive, on the part of the defendant. The circumstances may have been such as to excite suspicion, but the evidence adduced does not exclude the rational conclusion that some other person may have been the guilty party. S. v. Prince, 182 N. C., 788, 108 S. E., 330; S. v. Montague, 195 N. C., 20, 141 S. E., 285; S. v. English, 214 N. C., 564, 199 S. E., 920; S. v. Shu, 218 N. C., 387, 11 S. E., 155.\nThe judgment is\nEeversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DeviN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.",
      "Perree & Beal for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HILLIARD PENRY.\n(Filed 29 October, 1941.)\nIntoxicating Liquor \u00a7 9d: Criminal Law \u00a7 52b \u2014 Circumstantial evidence raising mere suspicion of guilt held insufficient to be submitted to the jury.\nEvidence that empty jars smelling of liquor were found in defendant\u2019s house and that in a field some 200 yards from defendant\u2019s house on land belonging to another, traversed by two or three paths used by persons in the neighborhood generally, were found 52 pints of whiskey concealed, is insufficient to be submitted to the jury on the question of defendant\u2019s possession of intoxicating liquor, either actual or constructive, the circumstances disclosed by the evidence being such as to excite suspicion but being insufficient to exclude the rational conclusion that some other person may have been the guilty party.\nAppeal by defendant from Clement, J., at March Term, 1941, of EaNDOLPh.\nEeversed.\nTbe defendant was charged with the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. There was verdict of guilty, and from judgment imposing sentence in accord therewith, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.\nPerree & Beal for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0248-01",
  "first_page_order": 292,
  "last_page_order": 293
}