¶1dissenting: In my judgment, the receipt of the testimony that law enforcement officers had previously searched the premises of the accused for liquor constituted prejudicial error, warranting a new trial. This testimony had a tendency to produce in the minds of the jurors the conviction that the accused was an habitual violator of the prohibition laws, who had managed in times past to escape the just retribution of the law.
236 N.C. 137
72 S.E.2d 612
State v. Peacock
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided August 22, 1952
Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1952-08-22
Appeal by defendant from Sharp, Special Judge, and a jury, December 1951 Criminal Term, JohNstoN. Criminal prosecution upon an indictment charging defendant with the unlawful possession and possession for the purpose of sale of one-half gallon of nontax-paid whiskey. On 7 October, 1951, at about 11:30 a.m., two officers of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board went to the defendant’s place of business and called for the defendant.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1952-08-22
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 1993
20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →