Burnett v. State
| Decision Date | 17 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 24961.,24961. |
| Citation | 196 Ind. 681,149 N.E. 440 |
| Parties | BURNETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; L. Ert Slack, Judge.
Lawrence Burnett was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed.
Asche & Spaan, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
A. L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and George J. Muller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
The sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of guilty by the court is the only error presented for decision.
The indictment charged that on or about February 1, 1925, in Marion county, Ind., the appellant did unlawfully manufacture, possess, transport, sell, barter, exchange, give away, furnish, and otherwise dispose of intoxicating liquor to persons unknown. At the conclusion of the evidence by appellee, and after the motion for the discharge of appellant, for the reason that there was no evidence that he transported intoxicating liquor for unlawful purposes had been overruled, and, after appellant had rested his case without having introduced any evidence, the court made its finding that appellant was guilty.
There was no evidence introduced by the state that appellant manufactured, possessed, transported, sold, exchanged, gave away, furnished, or otherwise disposed of intoxicating liquor to any person.
The testimony given by the sheriff of Marion county and his deputy was that they secreted themselves in a garage which was located on an alley in the city of Indianapolis, between 5 and 6 o'clock in the evening of February 1, 1925, and that, after waiting about 30 minutes, appellant and one Wolfa drove up in a big touring automobile, and stopped opposite where the sheriff and his deputy were hiding. Appellant and Wolfa alighted, and one of them unlocked the padlocked door of the garage on the opposite side of the alley from where the officers were, and both appellant and Wolfa entered. The officers rushed out and followed appellant and Wolfa into the garage they entered, and then saw Wolfa carrying a five-gallon can of alcohol in each hand, both of which he immediately placed on the floor, and appellant was standing behind a heater in the garage. Behind the heating plant were 24 five-gallon cans of alcohol. The officers arrested appellant and Wolfa five minutes after entering the garage.
[1] If the inference would follow from this evidence that appellant possessed the alcohol, such would not be an offense under the statute, which is...
To continue reading
Request your trial