Casper v. City Of Danville

• Decision Date: 16 June 1933
• Citation: 169 S.E. 734
• Parties: CASPER. v. CITY OF DANVILLE.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

169 S.E. 734

CASPER.

v.CITY OF DANVILLE.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 16, 1933.

Error to Corporation Court of Danville.

Calvin Casper was convicted of unlawfully transporting ardent spirits, and he brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

Argued before CAMPBELL, C. J., and HOLT, EPES, HUDGINS, GREGORY, and BROWNING, JJ.

Hugh T. Williams and Marvin I. Walton, both of Danville, for plaintiff in error.

John W. Carter, Jr., of Danville, for defendant in error.

CAMPBELL, Chief Justice.

A criminal warrant was issued by the police justice of the city of Danville, charging that, on the 4th day of June, 1931, Calvin Casper "did unlawfully, within 3 miles corporate limits of said city, did unlawfully manufacture, sell, offer, keep, store and exposefor sale, give away, transport, possess, and drink in a public place, ardent spirits, he the said * * * having been before convicted of a like offense, to-wit * * * against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth and ordinance of the city."

The defendant was convicted by the police justice and noted an appeal to the corporation court. Upon the call of the case for trial, the defendant moved the court to require the attorney for the commonwealth to furnish him a bill of particulars designating the offense for which he was to be tried. The motion was sustained and the following bill was filed:

"a. Sell ardent spirits.

"b. Offer to sell ardent spirits.

"c. Keep ardent spirits.

"d. Store and expose ardent spirits for sale.

"e. Give away ardent spirits.

"f. Transport ardent spirits.

"g. Possess ardent spirits.

"h. Manufacture ardent spirits."

The defendant objected to the bill filed, on the ground that it did not particularize the offense charged. The objection was overruled, and, notwithstanding the bill of particulars charged the commission of a felony, to wit, manufacturing of ardent spirits, a jury of five was impaneled to try the case. The accused was found guilty of unlawful transportation, and his punishment fixed at six months confinement in jail and a fine of $250.

The action of the court in overruling defendant's objection is assigned as error.

The bill of particulars filed is substantially a repetition of the warrant. In order properly to defend the eight charges filed against him, it was incumbent upon the accused to come prepared to meet each one, whether in fact the prosecution relied upon them or not.

[I] In Hudgins v. Commonwealth, 142 Va. 632, 128 S. E. 565, 566, Chief Justice Prentis reaffirms the doctrine stated in Webster v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 589, 127 S. E. 377, and quotes therefrom: "We do not undertake to decide what was necessary to be stated in the bill of particulars in all cases further than to say that every one accused of crime is entitled to have stated in plain and unequivocal terms the offense for which he is to be prosecuted. This much will be required even in a civil case. The state has no desire to leave one of its citizens in doubt or uncertainty as to any offenses charged against him. Prosecuting attorneys know, or ought to know, in advance, what they can prove, and ordinary justice demands that they should give the accused a fair statement of the offense for which he is to be prosecuted."

In the Hudgins Case the identical question herein involved was raised, but, as the judgment was reversed on another ground, the question was not decided. This comment was, however, made: "Upon the next trial, however, if a bill of particulars is again asked for by the accused, the trial court should require the prosecutor to supply such a bill as will fairly give the accused notice of the cause and nature of the accusations. An excellent example of an appropriate bill of particulars is found in Webster v. Commonwealth, supra."

The passage of the...