{
  "id": 8629672,
  "name": "STATE v. VANCE MEDLIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Medlin",
  "decision_date": "1949-04-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "302",
  "last_page": "304",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "230 N.C. 302"
    }
  ],
  "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": "228 N.C. 643",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627925
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "648"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0643-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 S.E. 2d 686",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626157
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0475-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 612",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627716
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0612-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 S.E. 618",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N.C. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626821
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S.E. 600",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N.C. 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599745
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 S.E. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N.C. 733",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658720
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0733-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S.E. 911",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N.C. 835",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659151
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0835-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 356,
    "char_count": 4718,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.345432909102184e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4406625637247577
    },
    "sha256": "b909572aeed5772c8a13b8552eb2d3b882b0150c89df5c9e3f29aad3392b08c5",
    "simhash": "1:6aa27a285744d5fe",
    "word_count": 827
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. VANCE MEDLIN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Seawell, J.\nThose who engage in the unlawful act of manufacturing intoxicating liquors do not set up signs with index fingers pointing to the location of the still, or mash, or products of distillation. Almost always, unless the party is found in the act, conviction depends in large measure on circumstantial evidence; and for that reason each case is sui generis. We need not expect to pull out of the card index cases exactly on all fours with that under review. However, examination of the following cases which deal with comparable circumstances will, we think, fully sustain the conclusion reached by the court below that the evidence in the instant case should go to the jury. S. v. Crouse, 182 N.C. 835, 108 S.E. 911; S. v. Clark, 183 N.C. 733, 110 S.E. 641; S. v. Meyers, 190 N.C. 239, 129 S.E. 600; S. v. Weston, 197 N.C. 25, 147 S.E. 618. The tools and materials found in the defendant\u2019s barn or crib, the snips with the adhering shreds of copper, the solder and rolls similar to those found at the still, the freshly- soldered seams of the newly made still found at the end of the path leading from the crib to the still, the nearby presence of\u2019 the peach mash, \u2014 all these are circumstances, some of them novel, which in their combination generate inferences of the defendant\u2019s guilt, \u2014 strong or weak it is not our province to say, \u2014 which were properly left to the jury. S. v. Massengill, 228 N.C. 612; S. v. Davenport, 227 N.C. 475, 42 S.E. 2d 686; S. v. Gentry, 228 N.C. 643, 648.\nWe find no error in the trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Seawell, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Forrest H. Shuford, II, Member of Staff, for the State.",
      "W. H. Yarborough for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. VANCE MEDLIN.\n(Filed 20 April, 1949.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 52 (S): Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 9<1\u2014\nCircumstantial evidence disclosing that tools and materials appropriate for the construction of a still were found in defendant\u2019s barn, that a \u2022beaten path led from his house to the edge of the woods where a newly constructed still, with like material, was found, and that fermenting mash was found about 300 yards from his house, with vehicle tracks leading therefrom to the still, is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury upon a charge of unlawful possession of material and equipment for the manufacture of whiskey.\n\u2022 DEFENDANT\u2019S appeal from Harris, J., December Criminal Term, 1948, Wake Superior Court.\n\u25a0 The defendant was tried in the recorder\u2019s court of Wake County on a warrant charging him with unlawful possession of material and equipment for- the manufacture of whiskey and, upon conviction, appealed to the Superior Court where the case was heard de novo. He was again found guilty and from the judgment on the verdict appeals to this Court.\nOnly one exception is presented on the appeal: Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to go to the jury over defendant\u2019s demurrer and motion for judgment as of nonsuit.\nThe evidence, which upon demurrer must be taken to be true, tends to show as follows:\nThe officers engaged in a search of defendant\u2019s premises found in his barn, or stable, the following: A pair of tin snips, a soldering iron, a blow torch used to beat the soldering iron, wire solder and gasoline. There were bits of copper adhering to the blade and screw, part of .the snippers. The solder was about the size of a pencil and rolled on a spool. Searching the barn, the officers found a beaten path, which led from it to a still about 125 or 150 yards from the house in the edge, of'the woods. A witness testified that no other path ran from the still to Medlin\u2019s crib. The still was brand new, as yet unused, made of copper, the. seams soldered together with new solder. At the still were also found spools - of solder wire bearing the same trademark and the same make as found in defendant\u2019s barn.\nAt another place about 250 or 300 yards from Medlin\u2019s house the officers found peach mash fermenting but not quite ready for distillation. The wagon path leading from the highway about 50 yards from Medlin\u2019s house reaches this spot. There were vehicle tracks leading up to the still. Medlin does not own a car but does own a woodsaw outfit on which stuff may he hauled.\nThe evidence disclosed that a number of other persons lived in the vicinity and owned and cultivated lands; and witnesses stated they did not know who owned the land on which the still was located.\nThis evidence was submitted to the jury over defendant\u2019s demurrer and exception and resulted, as stated, in a verdict of guilty.\nThe defendant made formal motion to set the verdict aside for error in the trial, which was declined, and as above stated, he objected to the ensuing judgment, excepted and appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Forrest H. Shuford, II, Member of Staff, for the State.\nW. H. Yarborough for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0302-01",
  "first_page_order": 358,
  "last_page_order": 360
}
