Opinion
Filed 5 March, 1952.
1. Criminal Law 40a — The witness, in reply to a question as to the defendants general character, stated that it was good "with the exception of dealing in whiskey." Held: The answer is not a proper subject of exception, since a witness may voluntarily qualify and explain his character testimony.
2. Intoxicating Liquor 9d — Evidence in this case held sufficient to support a verdict of guilty of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale.
APPEAL by defendant from Bobbitt, J., and a jury, Regular September 1951 Criminal Term, McDOWELL.
The defendant was found guilty by a jury of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. All other counts in the bill of indictment were disposed of by judgment as of nonsuit.
Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.
I.C. Crawford, Robert R. Reynolds, and Lawrence C. Stoker for defendant, appellant.
A witness for the State was asked if he knew the general character and reputation of the defendant. He replied: "It is good with the exception of dealing in whiskey."
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a witness, who is questioned only as to defendant's general character, may qualify and explain his answer. S. v. McLawhorn, 195 N.C. 327, 141 S.E. 883; S. v. Saleeby, 183 N.C. 740, 110 S.E. 844; S. v. Mills, 184 N.C. 694, 114 S.E. 314; S. v. Reagan, 185 N.C. 710, 117 S.E. 1; S. v. Fleming, 194 N.C. 42, 138 S.E. 342; S. v. Pridgen, 194 N.C. 795, 139 S.E. 601; S. v. Butler, 177 N.C. 585, 98 S.E. 821; Stansbury, N.C. Evidence, Sec. 114.
There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of guilty upon the charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. S. v. Carlson, 171 N.C. 818, 89 S.E. 30; S. v. Mann, 219 N.C. 212, 13 S.E.2d 247; S. v. Johnson, 220 N.C. 773, 18 S.E.2d 358; G.S. 15-173.
Hence, the judgment of the court below must stand.
No error.