Bracey v. Commonwealth.*
| Decision Date | 08 June 1916 |
| Citation | 89 S.E. 144 |
| Parties | BRACEY . v. COMMONWEALTH.* |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Southampton County.
Defendant Bracey was found guilty of selling ardent spirits without a license, and brings error. Affirmed.
J. N. Sebrell, Jr., of Norfolk, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
This writ of error is to a judgment upon a verdict of a jury finding the plaintiff in error guilty of selling ardent spirits without a license, and fining him $100; the court in its discretion, under section 27 of the Byrd Law, adding, as further punishment, a jail sentence of 30 days.
Taking up the several objections to this judgment in the order adopted by counsel, we are of opinion that there was no error in the court's refusal to quash the presentment upon the ground that it did not conclude "against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth." The Constitution requires that "indictments shall conclude, against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth" (Const. 1902, § 106 [Code 1904, p. ccxxxvi]) but a presentment for a misdemeanor stands on different ground from an indictment for a felony, it not being required that the former shall conclude in like manner with indictments. Our statute for nearly 70 years has provided that "prosecutions for offenses shall be by presentment, indictment or information." Code, § 39S9.
In Christian's Case, 7 Grat. (48 Va.) 631, the point was made that a presentment for a misdemeanor did not conclude "against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth, " and therefore should be quashed; but the motion to quash on that ground was overruled.
We are further of opinion that the court did not err in admitting as evidence the certificate of the state chemist, showing an analysis of the beverage sold by the plaintiff in error. The ground of objection to this action of the court is that it violates section 8 of the Constitution (Code 1904, p. ccix), which provides that "in all criminal prosecutions a man hath the right to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses."
Section 24 of the Byrd Law (Acts 1908, p. 286) provides that the certificate in question, "when signed and sworn to by the state chemist, shall be evidence in all prosecutions under the revenue laws of this state."
In Runde v. Commonwealth, 108 Va. 873, 61 S. E. 792, this court says:
"The provision of the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the right of the accused in all criminalprosecutions to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, has never been interpreted to exclude proper documentary evidence"—citing Bishop on Criminal Procedure (3d Ed.) §§ 1132-1134.
In that case we held that section 34 of the Byrd Law, in providing that the list of persons holding United States internal revenue tax receipts, when certified to by the internal revenue officer having charge of the same, should be deemed legal evidence in the courts of this commonwealth, did not violate the provision of the bill of rights relied on.
There is no valid distinction between the present case and the Runde Case, so far as the admissibility of the certificate, as proper documentary evidence, is concerned. The authorities show that, where there is statutory authority for making a certificate by a public officer of acts which are within the scope of his duty as an officer, such a certificate is receivable under the documentary evidence rule as an exception to the hearsay rule. Lederer v. Saake (C. C.) 166 Fed. 810; Ome v. Marstow, 175 Mass. 193, 55 N. E. 896; Richards v. Bussell, 70 Wash. 554, 127 Pac. 198, 129 Pac. 90; Belford v. Scribner, 144 C. S. 48S, 12 Sup. Ct. 734, 36 L. Ed. 514; Usher's Heirs v. Pride, 15 Grat. 190. The statute in the instant case makes it the duty of the Commissioner of Agriculture to cause, at the request of certain state and local officers, to be analyzed any mixture supposed to contain alcohol and to return to the officer making the request a certificate showing such analysis; further providing that the certificate of the chemist, when signed and sworn to by him, shall be evidence in prosecutions under the revenue laws. The certificate here involved was given in pursuance of the statute mentioned and was admissible in evidence under the documentary evidence rule, as an exception to the hearsay rule, since the certificate was given by a public officer in accordance with the statute, of a fact which corresponds to his duty as such public officer and which is laid upon him by law.
We are further of opinion that the contention, that the proof was not sufficient to show that the mixture analyzed was the same as that sold, cannot be sustained. The evidence on that subject is, we think, amply sufficient to establish identity between the beverage sold and that analyzed. Nor is there any merit in the contention that the certificate was not in accordance with the statute.
We are further of opinion that the court did not err in refusing the instruction offered by the defendant. That instruction,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith, 271PA84
...quite comparable to this one have been held admissible over objection upon similar constitutional grounds. See Bracey v. Commonwealth, 119 Va. 867, 89 S.E. 144; State v. Torello, 103 Conn. 511, 131 A. 429; Commonwealth v. Slavski, 245 Mass. 405, 140 N.E. 465, 29 A.L.R. 281; Commonwealth v. ......
-
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
...reached similar conclusions under their own constitutions. State v. Torello, 103 Conn. 511, 131 A. 429 (1925); Bracey v. Commonwealth, 119 Va. 867, 89 S.E. 144 (1916). Just two state courts appear to have read a state constitution to require a contrary result. State v. Clark, 290 Mont. 479,......
-
Kreck v. Spalding
...Commonwealth v. Goldsmith, 176 Pa. 283, 106 A.2d 649 (1954); Evans v. State, 480 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Bracy v. Commonwealth, 119 Va. 867, 89 S.E. 144 (1916); State v. Finkley, 6 Wash.App. 278, 492 P.2d 222 Defendant characterizes the Skinner report as crucial. Neither RCW ch. 5.45 ......
-
Commonwealth v. Slavski
...transcend the power of the Legislature or to be in conflict with article 12 of the Bill of Rights. To the same effect is Bracy v. Commonwealth, 119 Va. 867, 89 S. E. 144. 3. There was no error in denying the several requests for rulings. The first was not strictly applicable to a complaint ......