Guetling v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24,746 |
| Parties | Guetling v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied October 29, 1925, Reported at: 196 Ind. 643 at 648.
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Penal statute is not invalid for failing to fix place of imprisonment.---Acts 1923, ch. 34, p 108, making the transportation of liquor in an automobile a felony is not invalid because not prescribing a place of punishment for those convicted under its provisions, since the place of imprisonment is sufficiently prescribed by other statutes. p. 645.
2. STATUTES.---Title of the statute making transportation of liquor a felony, held sufficient.---An act entitled "An act concerning intoxicating liquor" which makes the transportation of liquor a felony, is not open to the objection of invalidity because of insufficient title, for such title expresses the subject of the act. p. 645.
3. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Certain provisions in statute making transportation a felony, treated as surplusage.---An affidavit charging the transportation of liquor in an automobile under Acts 1923, ch. 34, p. 108, is sufficient though it does not negative ownership of the automobile, or charge that it was used without the owner's consent, or that it was mortgaged, or that it contained firearms, since these provisions add nothing to the statute and may be treated as surplusage. p. 645.
4. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Evidence considered and held sufficient to prove transportation.---Upon a charge of transportation of liquor in an automobile, evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction which shows that accused drove his automobile at high speed in a city street colliding with a parked car; that a jug was seen sitting in the car in front of the front seat, before he started the car to escape from a deputy sheriff, and after the collision; that the jug contained whisky; and that accused also threw away a bottle of whisky after the collision. p 646.
b. CRIMINAL LAW.---No question is presented for review of a ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, if evidence heard thereon is not in the bill of exceptions.---A motion to suppress certain evidence was made, in a prosecution for transporting liquor, and a hearing was had upon the motion upon a denial of the facts stated therein; the record recites only that evidence was offered and heard and that the court overruled the motion to suppress; there being nothing in the bill of exceptions purporting to contain the evidence at such hearing nor the grounds on which the ruling was made, no question is presented for review upon the overruling of such motion. p. 648.
6. CRIMINAL LAW.---Supreme Court Rule 22 prohibits the presentation of new errors in brief on petition for rehearing.---A brief on a petition for rehearing may not challenge rulings of the trial court not presented in the original brief to the Supreme Court, since this is specifically prohibited by Supreme Court Rule 22. p. 649.
From the Vanderburgh Circuit Court; William C. Welborn, Special Judge.
Albert Guetling was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
A. E. Gore, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh, Attorney-General, and Mrs. Edward Franklin White, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
An affidavit charged that appellant did "unlawfully and feloniously transport certain intoxicating liquors in a certain vehicle, to wit: an automobile," etc. The case was tried by a jury and a verdict finding him guilty was returned, and judgment was entered accordingly. Overruling appellant's motions to quash the affidavit and for a new trial, respectively, are assigned as errors.
The sufficiency of the affidavit is challenged for the alleged reasons that: (1) Chapter 34, Acts 1923 p. 108, is invalid by reason of (a) not prescribing a place of imprisonment for those convicted of violating its provisions, and (b) not having a sufficient title, and (c) being ambiguous and uncertain; and that (2) the affidavit does not charge that appellant did not own the automobile used in transporting the liquor, or that he used it without the owner's consent, or that it was mortgaged, or that any guns or firearms were in it or were carried by the persons riding therein.
The place of imprisonment was sufficiently prescribed by other statutes with which this one must be construed. Simpson v. State (1925), 195 Ind. 633, 146 N.E. 747; Frey v. State (1925), ante 359, 147 N.E. 279.
The title of the act is "An act concerning intoxicating liquor" and the objection to it suggested by appellant is that it is not sufficiently specific. This is not available as an objection to a title which expresses the subject of the act. Volderauer v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 415, 143 N.E. 674; Hobbs v. Gibson School Tp. (1924), 195 Ind. 1, 144 N.E. 526; White v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 63, 144 N.E. 531; Gafill v. Bracken, Aud. (1924), 195 Ind. 551, 145 N.E. 312.
The fact that after having made it unlawful to transport intoxicating liquor "in any wagon, buggy, automobile water or aircraft or other vehicle," the statute proceeds to enumerate specific conditions under which such transportation shall be unlawful, as when the vehicle is not owned by the party so using it, or is mortgaged, or when firearms are carried in the car, does not make the statute ambiguous or uncertain. The specific provisions do not nullify or detract from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial