Gmeiner v. State

• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Myers, J.
• Citation: Gmeiner v. State, 197 Ind. 43, 149 N.E. 728 (Ind. 1925)
• Decision Date: 08 December 1925
• Docket Number: 24,510
• Parties: Gmeiner v. State of Indiana

149 N.E. 728

197 Ind. 43

Gmeiner v. State of Indiana

No. 24,510

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 8, 1925

1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Testimony held sufficient to sustain conviction of unlawful possession of still although search warrant was not introduced in evidence.---Testimony of a police officer that he and other officers, with a search warrant to search the premises, entered the defendant's home, in his absence, and found a seventy-five gallon still in operation, a quantity of "white mule" whisky and six barrels of mash, that- they waited until the defendant returned and then read the search warrant to him was sufficient to sustain a conviction of unlawfully having possession of a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, though the search warrant was not introduced in evidence, where nothing was removed from the premises until after the search warrant was read to the defendant. p. 45.

2. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---Homes of inhabitants of this state are not to be invaded except on compliance with all constitutional and statutory requirements.---The dwellings and adjacent premises of inhabitants of this state are under the highest protection against unlawful searches and are not to be invaded save and except upon full compliance with all constitutional and statutory requirements. p. 45.

3. STATUTES.---Title of act which will apprise the legislators and the public of the subject-matter of the law is sufficient.---It is not necessary that the title of an act should furnish a complete index of its contents; it will be sufficient to meet the constitutional requirements if, upon a liberal construction, it is sufficient to apprise the legislators and the public of the subject-matter of the legislation. p. 46.

4. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Legislature authorized to prohibit possession of stills or distilling apparatus for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor and, therefore, may provide a penalty for such possession.---Since the legislature has power to forbid the possession of stills or distilling apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquors, it may enforce such prohibition by an appropriate penalty. p. 46.

5. STATUTES.---Title of act of 1923 concerning stills and distilling apparatus held sufficient.---The act of 1923 concerning stills and distilling apparatus (Acts 1923 p. 107) was not unconstitutional under Art. 4, 19 of the Constitution, requiring the subject of an act to be expressed in the title, as the words "stills and distilling apparatus" in the title sufficiently cover the provisions of the law making it unlawful to use stills for unlawful purposes. p. 46.

From Marion Criminal Court (54,725); James A. Collins, Judge.

Carl Gmeiner was convicted of having possession of a still and distilling apparatus for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Joseph T. Markey, for appellant.

U. S Lesh, Attorney-General, Arnet B. Cronk and Carl Wilde, for the State.

OPINION

Myers, J.

Appellant, in the Marion Criminal Court, was charged by indictment, tried and convicted of having in his possession and under his control, and using, a certain still and distilling apparatus for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, in violation of § 1, Acts 1923 p. 107. From a judgment rendered against him, he perfected his appeal to this court, and has assigned as errors the action of the court in overruling his motion to quash the indictment, and the overruling of his motion for a new trial. Insufficient evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court, and that such decision was contrary to law, are the causes relied on to support his motion for a new trial.

If we understand appellant's position on the question of sufficient evidence, it is this: Failure of the state to introduce a search warrant in evidence, and that the officers entered appellant's home and residence in his absence and in the absence of all other persons there residing or in any manner connected with his residence. The evidence on behalf of the state was the testimony of one witness who, without any objection, testified that he, with other officers, went to the residence of appellant and found no one at home; that they had a search warrant to search the premises; that they entered the house and found a seventy-five gallon still in operation, a quantity of white mule whisky and six barrels of mash. The officers waited on appellant's premises until he returned, and then read the search warrant to him.

We cannot say there was not sufficient evidence in this case to...