Crafton v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | (No. 301.) |
| Citation | 240 S.W. 11 |
| Parties | CRAFTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; R. E. L. Johnson, Judge.
Mark Crafton was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
C. T. Bloodworth, of Corning, for appellant.
J. S. Utley, Atty. Gen., and Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted, under an indictment charging him with transporting liquor from one place to another in Clay county. In the indictment it is charged that appellant transported "alcoholic, vinous, malt, spirituous, and fermented liquors" from the home of M. H. Hudson to a place about half a mile from Corning.
The sole contention here for reversal of the judgment is that the evidence was not sufficient, with respect either to the transportation of the liquor or the kind of liquor transported, to support the verdict.
The state introduced two witnesses to sustain the charge against appellant. Each of these witnesses testified that they, together with appellant, went out to Hudson's home in an automobile and procured three quarts of liquor and drank two quarts of it as they returned to Corning in the car, and that when they reached the Polk pasture, about half a mile from Corning, they took the two empty bottles and the full quart out of the car and hid them. Neither of the witnesses stated that appellant had control of the car, nor did either of them explain which one of the party had charge of the car, but they merely said that the three went out together in the car and procured the bottles of liquor and returned to the Polk pasture with it, drinking two quarts as they came along.
The two witnesses were not indicted, but appeared before the grand jury as witnesses against appellant, and, as before stated, their testimony was relied on for conviction in this case.
The testimony was sufficient to show that appellant transported the liquor. It is unimportant whether he was in charge of the car, or whether one of the other parties had charge of the car. The evidence showed, at least, that he went voluntarily with the party when the liquor was procured and transported. Hager v. State, 141 Ark. 419, 217 S. W. 461.
We fail to find in the record, however, any substantial testimony that the liquor transported was of such a character, the transportation of which would constitute a violation of law.
The witnesses stated that they procured and transported the liquor and drank some of it, but they each stated that it was not whisky and was not intoxicating.
The first witness introduced, Tom Stallings, said, in response to a question propounded by the prosecuting attorney, that the stuff procured and transported was not "liquor," meaning, of course, not intoxicating liquor. He stated that it was "white, milky looking," and did not look anything like "white mule whisky." He stated further that the liquor was not intoxicating.
The prosecuting attorney then interrogated the witness concerning statements made before the grand jury and asked him if he had not, in his testimony before the grand jury, called the stuff "whisky" and stated that they had got three quarts of whisky and brought it to town, and the witness made this reply:
The prosecuting attorney asked the witness if he had not stated before the grand jury that he thought that they got "whisky coming back from Success," and the witness replied that he thought he had made that statement. The witness then further stated that he told the grand jury that the liquor was not whisky and that it was not intoxicating and would not make any person drunk. He then reiterated his statement, made in the beginning of the testimony, that the liquor obtained was not whisky and was not intoxicating.
The testimony of the other witness, Arnold, was about to the same effect, except that he was perhaps a little more emphatic in his statement that the liquor was not intoxicating and that it was not whisky. He said that it did not look like whisky and did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McConnon & Co. v. Meadows
... ... fall under the ban of the statute because spirituous liquor ... is present. Carl v. State, 87 Ala. 17, 6 So. 118; ... Bradley v. State, 121 Ga. 201, 48 S.E. 981; Roberts ... v. State, 4 Ga.App. 207, 60 S.E. 1082 ... The ... 302. In the following cases the evidence was held ... insufficient to prove that the goods in question were ... intoxicating liquors. Crafton v. State (Ark.), 240 ... S.W. 11; [138 Miss. 345] Norwood v. State, 80 Fla ... 613, 86 So. 506; Parchman v. State, 127 Miss. 8; ... State v ... ...
-
Coleman v. Utley
... ... appellant was entitled to the whole amount advanced for the ... purpose of planting the crop or to nothing. In this state of ... the record it was the duty of the court to sustain the motion ... filed by appellant and render a judgment upon the undisputed ... facts ... ...
-
Locke v. City of Ft. Smith
...to render him guilty under the statute, or under an ordinance based upon the statute. We think this holding is in accord with Crafton v. State (Ark.) 240 S. W. 11, and Hager v. State, 141 Ark. 419, 217 S. W. Tested by this rule, the evidence introduced by the city is not legally sufficient ......