{
  "id": 8611273,
  "name": "STATE v. HOYLE BENTON BUCHANAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Buchanan",
  "decision_date": "1951-04-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "477",
  "last_page": "480",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "233 N.C. 477"
    }
  ],
  "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": "194 S.E. 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N.C. 746",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619343
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0746-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 S.E. 2d 349",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8605472
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0447-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 472",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622996
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 S.E. 2d 4",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 N.C. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11301416
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/220/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "80 S.E. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 N.C. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659081
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/164/0533-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 419,
    "char_count": 6995,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3086822822488879
    },
    "sha256": "03c755342b74496812e0a1552e39d638a01ac45fdea95511c045ab21a0c782f2",
    "simhash": "1:2f6b7c5df6cfe682",
    "word_count": 1238
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:46.396528+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HOYLE BENTON BUCHANAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WiNBORNE, J.\nDefendant, on this appeal, challenges, in the first instance, the correctness of the action of the trial court in overruling his demurrer to the evidence under provisions of G.S. 15-173.\nIn this State G.S. 18-32 declares it unlawful for any person to have or keep in possession for the purpose of sale, except as otherwise authorized by law, any spirituous liquor, and proof of the possession of more than one gallon of spirituous liquors at any one time, whether in one or more places, shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation of this section.\nPossession, within the meaning of this statute, G.S. 18-32, may be either actual or constructive. S. v. Lee, 164 N.C. 533, 80 S.E. 405; S. v. Meyers, 190 N.C. 239, 129 S.E. 600; S. v. Penry, 220 N.C. 248, 17 S.E. 2d 4; S. v. Webb, ante, 382.\nIn the Meyers case, supra, it is stated: \u201cIf the liquor was within the power of the defendant, in such a sense that he could and did command its use, the possession was as complete within the meaning of the statute as if his possession had been actual.\u201d\nThe defendant here, by his plea of not guilty, put in issue every element of the offense charged. S. v. Meyers, supra; S. v. Harvey, 228 N.C. 62, 44 S.E. 2d 472; S. v. Hendrick, 232 N.C. 447, 61 S.E. 2d 349; S. v. Webb, supra.\nThe question therefore arises here as to whether there is evidence sufficient to support a finding by the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had in his possession, actual or constructive, more than one gallon of spirituous liquors. While the record on appeal recites evidence from which the jury might have found otherwise, we are of opinion and hold that the quoted portions of the evidence are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against defendant on the charge of unlawful possession of more than one gallon of spirituous liquors on 24 June, 1950, within the meaning of G.S. 18-32.\nThis ease is distinguishable in factual situation from the ease of S. v. Hanford, 212 N.C. 746, 194 S.E. 481, on which defendant relies. It too is distinguishable from S. v. Webb, supra.\nOther assignments of error have been given due attention and are found to be without merit.\nHence, in the judgment below, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WiNBORNE, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, and Walter F. Brinkley, Member of Staff, for the State.",
      "J ones \u25a0& Farmer for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HOYLE BENTON BUCHANAN.\n(Filed 18 April, 1951.)\n1. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 4a\u2014\nPossession of any intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, except as authorized by law, is unlawful, and possession within the meaning of the statute may be actual or constructive. G.S. 18-32.\n2. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 9b\u2014\nProof of possession of more than one gallon of spirituous liquors at one time, whether in one or more places, constitutes prima facie evidence of possession for sale. G.S. 18-32.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 28\u2014\nDefendant\u2019s plea of not guilty puts in issue every element of the offense charged.\n4. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 9d\u2014\nEvidence tending to show that defendant operated a rooming house and that the officers found more than one gallon of tax-paid whiskey in the two rooms occupied by him, is sufficient to make out a prima facie case and overrule defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit in a prosecution under G.S. 18-32.\nAppeal by defendant from Hatch, Special Judge, at December Term, 1950, of Wake.\nCriminal prosecution upon a warrant issued out of tbe City Court of Raleigh, City of Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina, charging that Hoyle Benton Buchanan did on 24 June, 1950, at and in the City of Raleigh \u201cunlawfully sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish, purchase or possess, intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale\u2014 to wit, forty-nine pints of tax-paid whiskey, against the form of the statute,\u201d etc., heard de novo in Superior Court on appeal thereto from judgment of said city court.\nDefendant pleaded not guilty.\nUpon the trial in Superior Court, the State offered evidence, briefly stated in the light most favorable to the State, as follows:\nOn 24 June, 1950, defendant was in charge of, and living in a rooming house in the 300 block of South Blount Street in the city of Raleigh, for probably six or seven months. Steps lead up to a large room or hallway. Around this hall are small adjoining rooms. There is a door from the hall into each room, and connecting doors between all rooms. Officer Goodwin testified in pertinent part: \u201cI found which room was occupied by Buchanan, \u2014 the one on the south and southeast corner. We went in that room. In one of the rooms, he has two rooms there that he claims. In one of those rooms we found 7 pints of tax-paid whiskey ... In the adjoining room, as I say, each room is joined. The door from that room was open into the adjoining room. In that room we found 8 pints of whiskey and a broken pint bottle which was about a fifth full, and a broken fifth bottle which had just a small amount in it, I\u2019d say a tablespoon . . . We went into all the rooms and we found whiskey in seven of the rooms ... 8 broken pints and a broken fifth in one room; in the next ... 8 pints ... in another 8 pints . . . one of them was locked; we never did get into that; ... in another room there were 8 pints . . . in another ... 7 pints, a total of 48 pints . . . This is the whiskey. The whiskeys were in bags . . .\u201d\nOfficer Peebles testified in pertinent part: \u201cI went on up to the room that Buchanan told me several times was his room, and I went in that room and the one on each side, the one just east of his room, and the one joining at the west. They were open from his room . . . When I went in his room I found 7 pints in Buchanan\u2019s room; there were 7 pints in the room adjoining on the east side, and ... 8 pints in a bag in the room joining his on the west; then there was a piece of a pint ... I found 22 full pints in the two rooms.\u201d\nAnd Officer Nichols testified in pertinent part: \u201cThe doors were unlocked between the rooms we went into. You can go from Buchanan\u2019s room to each of the other rooms without unlocking any doors ... I was in Buchanan\u2019s apartment, two rooms; we found several pints there.\u201d\nTbe State also offered, over objection by defendant, evidence tending to show that tbe officers bad observed tbe place since Buchanan has been in charge of it, two or three Saturday nights during tbe month, and had seen \u201cconsiderable traffic in and out other than the roomers . . . people drive up, park their cars, go in and stay a while, and come out.\u201d And Officer Nichols, without objection by defendant, testified to like effect.\nDefendant offered no evidence, but reserved exceptions to denial of his motions, aptly made for judgment as of nonsuit.\nYerdict: Guilty as charged.\nJudgment: Confinement in common jail of Wake County for a term of nine months and assigned to work the public roads \u201cunder the order and direction\u201d of the State Highway and Public Works Commission.\nDefendant appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.\nAttorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, and Walter F. Brinkley, Member of Staff, for the State.\nJ ones \u25a0& Farmer for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0477-01",
  "first_page_order": 527,
  "last_page_order": 530
}