Drury v. State
| Citation | 165 N.E. 321,200 Ind. 544 |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | 25,023 |
| Parties | Drury v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS---Selling and Giving Away---Evidence Held Sufficient to Sustain Conviction.---On a charge of selling and giving away intoxicating liquor, testimony was given that two police officers saw the defendant give to the occupants of a car a paper sack which contained something which looked like a bottle. The occupants of the car drove away and, finding themselves pursued by the officers, one of said occupants threw out a package containing a bottle, which contained "white-mule" whisky. The bottle and the sack were introduced in evidence, one of the occupants of the car testifying that the bottle looked like the one he got from the defendant. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for unlawfully selling and giving away intoxicating liquor as charged in the affidavit. p. 546.
2. WITNESSES---Cross-Examination---Refusal to Permit Repetition of Question.---In a prosecution for selling and giving away intoxicating liquor, the refusal of the court to permit counsel for the defendant to ask a witness for the state, on a second cross-examination, whether the officers told him that if he did not fix the blame on some one, they would "take him down," was not error, where he had asked a question of the same import on the first cross-examination and got a negative answer. p. 546.
From Marion Criminal Court (58,313); James A. Collins, Judge.
Charles Drury was convicted of selling and giving away intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Alvah J. Rucker and John N. Wright, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General, and George J. Muller, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant was found guilty on count one which charged the defendant with having unlawfully sold, given away, etc., intoxicating liquor to persons named therein, among other charges of violation of Acts 1917, ch. 4, § 4, Acts 1923, ch. 23, § 1. Judgment was rendered upon the finding. There were other counts in the affidavit. Assignments of error are predicated upon the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial, for the causes that the finding is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law; and upon action of the court sustaining the state's objection to a question propounded to a witness for the state on cross-examination on behalf of appellant.
The evidence most favorable to sustain the finding is that the two men, on February 19, 1925, at 5:05 p. m., drove up in front of appellant's grocery store and stopped, and that appellant came out to their automobile, which was a coupe and one of the occupants stated that he wanted a small bottle. Appellant returned to his store and brought to the automobile a paper sack which contained a bottle and the occupant of the car gave him a dollar. At the time of this occurrence, two police officers of the city of Indianapolis were making a search of a dwelling house which was the house next to appellant's dwelling house, which latter house was next to his store, and was about 100 feet away from the point where the automobile stopped. The officers saw appellant hand to the occupants of the car while they were in the car, a paper sack, which contained, as one of the officers testified, something that...
To continue reading
Request your trial