Heyverests v. State
| Decision Date | 10 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 25189.,25189. |
| Citation | 202 Ind. 359,174 N.E. 710 |
| Parties | HEYVERESTS v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from St. Joseph Circuit Court.
Peter Heyverests was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor and unlawfully maintaining a common nuisance, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 174 N. E. 292.
W. D. Kurywczak, of South Bend, for appellant.
Arthur Gilliom, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty on two counts of an affidavit, one charging that he unlawfully possessed intoxicating liquor, and the other charging that he unlawfully maintained a common nuisance. He was fined $100, and sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment on each count. The only error relied upon for reversal is the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for a new trial, wherein the following grounds are alleged: That the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, and that the court erred in permitting the introduction in evidence of some of the beer which was found when appellant's premises were searched.
Briefly, the evidence is that police officers of South Bend on October 20, 1925, acting under a search warrant, in appellant's presence searched his soft drink parlor, and found 1,800 bottles of home brew beer. (Sixty bottles were on ice in the back room of the place of business and the remainder was in cases in the basement.) Forty-two gallons of beer also were found brewing. Two bottles of the beer were tagged by the police and sent to the South Bend Medical Laboratory where it was tested. The director of that laboratory, who was a doctor, testified that one sample of the beer contained 1.88 per cent. absolute alcohol by volume and another contained 2.04 per cent. There was evidence that the place of business had a bad reputation as being a place where intoxicating liquors were sold, possessed, and otherwise disposed of contrary to law. The appellant testified that “I got a lot of relatives coming over, and we like beer, you know, and that is the reason we drink so much of it.”
[1] Appellant contends that the venue of the case was not proved, but this contention is not borne out by the record. One of the police officers who made the search testified that he saw the beer at “808 East Howard Street and at the police station,” and that he found the beer at “defendant's place of business,” and that this was “in South Bend, St. Joseph County.” Three of the officers testified that they found the beer at defendant's place of business at 808 East Howard street, while another testified that it was on “either Corby or Howard Street, close to Notre Dame.” Two other officers testified as to the bad reputation of appellant's premises at 808 East Howard street as being a place where intoxicating liquors were sold, possessed, and otherwise disposed of contrary to law.
At the trial, appellant objected to the introduction of state's Exhibits B and C (beer which had been tested in the laboratory and as to the alcoholic content of which the laboratory director had testified), “on the ground that there has been no proof that either of said exhibits was delivered to this witness, and that as to either *** there has been no proof as to where the alleged beer was from the time that it was seized until it was examined and tested.” . On appeal, appellant in his brief contends that the ruling of the court overruling his objection was erroneous, because “it was not shown that the contents were in the same state so far as alcoholic content was concerned as when seized upon the premises of accused.”
[2][3][4][5] In the trial court appellant made no objection, on the ground which he now asserts and relies upon, to the evidence which was offered and received. A party who objects to the admission of evidence1 must state or point out to the trial court with reasonable certainty the specific grounds of his objection, and, when such grounds are stated, the implication is that there are not others, or, if others, that they are waived. 2Howard v. State (1921) 191 Ind. 232, 242, 131 N. E. 403;Bass v. State (1894) 136 Ind. 165, 36 N. E. 124. If the evidence is received over such objection, an appellant cannot in the court of appeal urge, for the first time, other or different objections, Musser v. State (1901) 157 Ind. 423, 431, 61 N. E. 1;Shenkenberger v. State (1900) 154 Ind. 630, 636, 57 N. E. 519 (), but the question raised must be determined by the record as made in the trial court, and the only objections to evidence available on appeal as causes for reversal are those which were presented to and passed upon by the trial court, Koehler v. State (1919) 188 Ind. 387, 391, 123 N. E. 111;Dillon v. State (1924) 194 Ind. 600, 604, 142 N. E. 643;Gillenwater v. State (1925) 196 Ind. 556, 560, 147 N. E. 714.3
[6][7][8] On cross-examination the doctor who made the laboratory test was asked, “How long, as a rule, does it take to accumulate that much per cent of alcohol” and stated, “That all depends upon temperature, and whether there is any yeast present or not, any sugar or not, to ferment.” His further cross-examination was as follows:
Appellant contends that, because of this cross-examination, there is a failure of proof and that the corpus delicti has not been proved. The determination of questions of fact and the weight of the evidence is for the jury. Under the evidence submitted to it, the jury, by its verdict of guilty, determined that the beer found on appellant's premises was intoxicating liquor. The laboratory test made two days after the arrest, and showing that the beer then contained from 1.88 per cent. to 2.04 per cent. of alcohol, was evidence that might properly be considered by the jury, although the inference of guilt might not necessarily be drawn from such evidence. The jury must determine what inferences are to be drawn from the evidence. In addition to the testimony of the laboratory director concerning the character of the liquor, the police officers testified that what they found as a result of their search was “home brew.” We cannot here hold that there is no evidence to support the verdict.
[9][10][11] The appellant contends, and we have held, that, although section 2744, Burns' 1926, provides that, in a prosecution for...
To continue reading
Request your trial