Cummins v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 05 May 1925 |
| Citation | 208 Ky. 695 |
| Parties | Cummins v. Commonwealth. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Intoxicating Liquors — Conviction of Aiding and Abetting in Manufacture Held Supported by Evidence. — Evidence held to support conviction of aiding and abetting in manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
2. Criminal Law — Facts Admitted or Undenied by Defendant as Witness Taken as True. — Facts in evidence, admitted or undenied by defendant in his testimony, are taken as true.
3. Criminal Law — Conviction May be had on Circumstantial Evidence Alone. — While accused's guilt must be established by evidence beyond reasonable doubt, conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence alone, when sufficient to exclude every reasonable hyphothesis of innocence, especitlly in case of liquor law violations.
4. Criminal Law — Jury's Province to Pass on Witness' Credibility and Determine Guilt or Innocence from all Evidence. — It is jury's province to pass on credibility of witnesses and determine from evidence as whole accused's guilt or innocence.
5. Criminal Law — Admission of Evidence Without Objection or Exception Not Reviewed. — Admission of evidence without objection or exception cannot be reviewed.
6. Criminal Law — Admission of Testimony as to Letter Informing Witness of Defendant's Reputation as Liquor Law Violator Held Not Prejudicial Error. — Admission of Testimony as to letter informing witness of defendant's reputation as liquor law violator held not prejudicial error, in view of other witnesses' uncontradicted testimony as to his bad reputation in such respect.
7. Criminal Law — No Reversal for Admission of Evidence of Search for and Discovery of Still Without Search Warrant, in Absence of Objection to or Motion to Exclude Evidence on Such Ground. — Where record shows no objection to evidence of search for and discovery of still, nor motion to exclude it, because of absence of search warrant, Supreme Court will not reverse conviction on assumption of invalidity or irregularity of search or seizure, especially where not asked to do so on such ground.
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court.
W.A. BYRON for appellant.
FRANK E. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, and GARDNER K. BYERS, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Affirming.
The appellant, E.E. Cummins, was indicted, tried and convicted in the Pendleton circuit court of the offense of aiding and abetting another in unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed by verdict of the jury and judgment of the court at a fine of $250.00 and imprisonment of sixty days in jail. He insists that he was wrongfully convicted and by this appeal seeks a reversal of the judgment of conviction.
The bill of evidence was not taken by a stenographer, but prepared and agreed upon by counsel for the appellant and the Commonwealth's attorney with the approval of the trial judge, whose certification thereof appears thereto over his official signature. From the evidence therein contained it appears that on July 3, 1924, C.B. Peoples, sheriff of Pendleton county, accompanied by Charles Ravenscraft, a deputy sheriff of that county, J.O. Perrin, a policeman of the city of Falmouth, and W.C. Thompson, a federal prohibition officer, went to the residence and farm of the appellant in Pendleton county to make a search for an illicit still, of which they had previously received information, and which still they quickly found on the appellant's farm at a distance of between 200 and 300 yards from his residence, concealed by surrounding bushes and small trees. The still was reached by a well defined roadway leading to it from his residence. The still, which consisted of a large metal tank resting on stone walls, contained the necessary copper coil or worm and such other attachments or appliances as are found with a still properly equipped for the manufacture of whiskey; and the recent use of the still for that purpose was shown by the fresh cinders and hot ashes that were seen in the firepit from which its contents were heated.
Two barrels of hot mash for use in the manufacture of whiskey were found at the still by the officers and destroyed. They also found with the still two milk cans with the appellant's name painted on them, and a case knife precisely like the knives they discovered in use upon the dining table at his residence. In addition, it was discovered by the officers that the still was covered by pieces of metal roofing of the kind with which his barn had recently been covered. The still, worm and other appliances, together with the pieces of metal roofing and such other articles as were found with them, were seized by the officers and later introduced in evidence on the appellant's trial and by them identified.
At the time of his arrest, which was immediately after the discovery of the still and its appendages by the officers, the appellant admitted to them that the two milk cans were his property, but claimed that he did not know how they got to the still. He at the same time denied that the still was his property.
The foregoing facts were established by the uncontradicted testimony of the four officers by whom the still was discovered, three of whom, C.B. Peoples, Charles Ravenscraft, and J.O. Perrin, testified in addition that they were well acquainted with the appellant, E.E. Cummins, and with his reputation with respect to engaging in the unlawful manufacture and selling of intoxicating liquors, and that his reputation is that of an unlawful manufacturer of and trafficker in "moonshine" whiskey, and for that reason bad.
The appellant, upon taking the witness stand in his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial