Foran v. State

• Decision Date: 01 July 1924
• Docket Number: No. 24367.,24367.
• Citation: 144 N.E. 529,195 Ind. 55
• Parties: FORAN v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

195 Ind. 55

144 N.E. 529

FORAN

v.STATE.

No. 24367.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

July 1, 1924.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James A. Collins, Judge.

Patrick Foran was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Holmes & McCallister, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., and Mrs. Edward Franklin White, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.

TRAVIS, J.

[1] Appellant was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law as charged by an affidavit in three counts, originally filed in the city court of the city of Indianapolis on December 28, 1922, which charged the offenses of unlawfully (count 1) furnishing and disposing of intoxicating liquor to two persons of December 27, 1922; (count 2) keeping intoxicating liquor with an intent to sell, etc., on December 28, 1922; (count 3) maintaining a common nusiance-a room where intoxicating liquors were kept for sale, etc.- on December 28, 1922; in violation of sections 4 and 20, Acts 1917, p. 15, as amended Acts 1921, p. 736, section 8356d and section 8356t, Burns' Supplement 1921. From a judgment upon the general finding of guilty by the court, appellant appeals, and assigns as error the action of the trial court in the overruling of his motion for a new trial, for the causes that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, and makes the sole proposition that he has been put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.

The appellant did not make a formal plea of autrefois acquit, but tried the issue of former jeopardy under the general plea of not guilty. Section 2069, Burns' 1914. Appellant in his evidence to support his plea of former jeopardy under the general plea introduced in evidence the following stipulation:

“It is agreed by and between counsel for the state and counsel for the defendant in open court in the presence of the defendant, that defendant's Exhibit No. 1 is the affidavit upon which the defendant Foran was tried in the city court on the 20th day of December, 1922, and it is further agreed he was found not guilty as charged.”

The affidavit referred to as Exhibit No. 1 in the stipulation was filed in the city court of the city of Indianapolis December 20, 1922, and consisted of six counts which charged appellant with the violation of the Prohibition Law on December 20, 1922, with having unlawfully (1) sold, etc., intoxicating liquor; (2) manufactured, transported, and possessed intoxicating liquor, and for keeping intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, etc.; (3) possessed a certain still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor intended for use in violation of law; (4) sold on that date a certain alcholic preparation for beverage purposes; (5) maintained a common nuisance, a place where intoxicating liquors were kept for sale, etc., and (6) received intoxicating liquor from a carrier. Exhibit No. 1, which was offered and read in evidence, included the indorsement of the judge of the court on the face of the affidavit, “Discharged. D. O. W., Judge,” which initials stood for D. O. Wilmeth, Judge.

Appellant on his own behalf testified that he was arrested December 19, 1922, on which day a charge of “blind tiger” was placed against him, and that on the following day, December 20, 1922, he was tried in the city court of the city of Indianapolis, and that after the hearing of the testimony at that trial he was discharged by the court.

The affidavit which was first filed in the city court, and which is Exhibit No. 1, charged the sale of intoxicating liquor, but did not name any person to whom such liquor was sold. The second affidavit, which was filed December 28th, charged that appellant unlawfully furnished and disposed of intoxicating liquor to Walter Miles and William Sweeney. In the trial of the case at bar, Walter Miles testified that he purchased three or four drinks of whisky of the appellant December 19, 1922, and that he did not buy any liquor from appellant between the 20th and the 27th days of December, 1922. Sweeney testified that he bought five or six drinks of liquor of the appellant December 19, 1922, and that Miles was with him when he purchased it. All the evidence on behalf of the state was in support of the offense charged in the first count of the affidavit, which was concerning sales to each of the two persons named only, and on December 19, 1922. No evidence was introduced, at the trial of the case at bar, to show what the evidence was at the trial in the city court under the first affidavit, to prove the fact that the offense alleged in the first affidavit was identical with the offense alleged in the second affidavit.

As appellant points out in his brief, the evidence affirmatively shows that the whole transaction out of which this prosecution arose occurred on December 19, 1922, but it does not follow, as alleged in the next point by appellant, that the evidence equally affirmatively shows that the offenses charged by an affidavit against appellant which was filed in the city court of the city of Indianapolis December 20, 1922, were based upon the same transaction upon which the case at bar is based. Outside of the evidence shown by the stipulation and Exhibit No. 1, there is no evidence in the record, as disclosed by appellant's brief, to show when the offenses charged by the first affidavit known as Exhibit No. 1 were committed. The offenses charged in the first affidavit may have been committed at any time previous to the filing of the affidavit within the period of the statute of limitations, if they were not committed on the exact date alleged. The first affidavit did not allege to whom the sales of intoxicating liquor were made, but alleged that appellant did “unlawfully sell,” etc., “intoxicating liquor to - and -.” The appellant made no objection to the charge thus made by count 1 of the affidavit filed in the city court December 20th. It is plain to be seen that the two affidavits do not themselves show that the offenses as charged in both affidavits are one and the same, or that they even grew out of the same transaction. It would be necessary, in order for the court which tried the cause to conclude that the offenses of selling in both affidavits were one and the same, that evidence aliunde should be introduced to show the evidence that was given at the first trial. This evidence would show whether or not the sales charged in the first affidavit, and upon which appellant was tried, were made the same day and place as the disposal of intoxicating liquor...