Patterson v. State

• Decision Date: 20 October 1919
• Docket Number: 198
• Citation: 215 S.W. 629,140 Ark. 236
• Parties: PATTERSON v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

215 S.W. 629

140 Ark. 236

PATTERSON v. STATE

No. 198

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 20, 1919

Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; James Cochran, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Sam R Chew, for appellant.

1. The indictment was not found and returned into court by the grand jury. Gould's Digest, chap. 52, § 87; 33 Ark. 180; 93 Id. 290.

2. The evidence does not sustain the verdict. There is no proof that defendant manufactured or brewed liquors of any kind. Outside of appellant's admission that she made the stuff found in her residence, there was no evidence of the corpus delicti.

3. The court erred in admitting the testimony of Ruth Harris Thompson and Wallace that Wallace and Thompson had bought a bottle or package of liquor called choc beer. Appellant was not present when the sale was made. The testimony was not competent and was prejudicial.

4. The court erred also in examining the witnesses That was the business of the State's attorney.

John D Arbuckle, Attorney General, and Robert C. Knox, Assistant for appellee.

1. The endorsement on the indictment shows that it was returned into court in the presence of the grand jury and was marked filed by the clerk. 37 Ark. 238; 93 Id. 290.

2. The corpus delicti was proved sufficiently and that it was alcohol liquor. 111 Ark. 457. All the circumstances as well as defendant's confession shows that defendant made this choc beer contrary to the laws of Arkansas in Crawford County, Arkansas.

3. There was no error in admitting the testimony of the sale of liquor by Harvey Davis and that it was intoxicating.

4. The indictment does not charge two offenses; only one was charged in the two counts. The case in 135 Ark. 243 was disapproved of in Harris v. State, ante p. 46.

5. Appellant's instruction No. 1 was properly modified by the court and on the whole case the judgment is right and should be affirmed.

OPINION

HART, J.

Geraldine Patterson prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction against her for manufacturing intoxicating liquors or a compound or preparation thereof commonly called "choc" beer, contrary to the statute.

The first assignment of error is that the record does not show that the indictment was returned into court by the grand jury, and for that reason the conviction can not be sustained.

The indictment has endorsed on the back the following: "No. 11, State of Arkansas v. Geraldine Patterson. A true bill. S.W. Haley, foreman, indictment for manufacturing liquor. Witnesses, Ruth Hart, Dick Wallace, Jim Thompson, D. W. Moore, L. D. Buel, Rich Henry, Otto V. Martin. Filed July 11, 1919, by Wallace Oliver, Clerk." The words, "Filed July 11th, 1919, Wallace Oliver, Clerk," were stamped on the back of the indictment in purple ink with a rubber stamp. The record also contains the following:

"July 11, 1919. In the matter of the grand jury. The grand jury comes into court in a body and files in open court indictments Nos. 6 to 12, inclusive, and, having no further business, retire to consider their further duties."

The record in the present case is different from that in Shinn v. State, 93 Ark. 290, 124 S.W. 263, relied upon by counsel for the defendant. There the only showing made by the record was the words, "Filed in open court this 8th day of September, 1909," and the court held that this was not sufficient to show the return into court by the grand jury. Here the record expressly shows that the grand jury came into court in a body and returned an indictment numbered 11. The indictment in question bears that number, and this is a sufficient showing that the grand jury returned the indictment into court. Fitzpatrick v. State, 37 Ark. 238. It follows that this assignment of error is not well taken.

The next assignment of error is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. In making this contention, counsel rely upon the rule laid down in Greenwood v. State, 107 Ark. 568, 156 S.W. 427, and many other cases, to the effect that under our statute, to warrant a conviction upon a confession not made in open court, there must be independent evidence to show that the offense was actually committed by some one.

In the present case the defendant confessed to the deputy sheriff who arrested her, that she had manufactured a preparation called "choc" beer which was found in a keg in her house at Van Buren, Arkansas. She also admitted to another witness that she had manufactured the "choc" beer and said that she had made it for her own use. There was other proof which, if believed by the jury, showed that the beer was manufactured in the house of the defendant in Van Buren, Arkansas. The liquid was found in a keg, and a chemist, who made an examination of it, testified that the keg smelled like it contained fermented liquor. Some grain mashed up in a sack was also found in her house, which was shown to the chemist. He said that this grain seemed to have passed through a state of fermentation, or at least it had been cooked and would, when placed with yeast in water, ferment and produce alcohol. Other witnesses testified that choc beer was...