People v. Harter

• Decision Date: 01 October 1928
• Docket Number: No. 132.,132.
• Citation: People v. Harter, 244 Mich. 346, 221 N.W. 302 (Mich. 1928)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HARTER et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

244 Mich. 346

221 N.W. 302

PEOPLE

v.HARTER et al.

No. 132.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct 1, 1928.

Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Benjamin Williams, Judge.

Clarence Harter and Anna Pangborn were convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and keeping a place where such liquors were possessed and stored, and they bring error. Reversed as to defendant first named, and affirmed as to defendant last named.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except POTTER, J. Frank L. Blackman and Walter A. Kirkby, both of Jackson, for appellants.

Harry E. Barnard, Pros. Atty., and Harry D. Boardman, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Jackson, for the People.

NORTH, J.

The defendants. Clarence Harter and Anna Pangborn, were jointly tried and convicted by a jury of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and of keeping a place where such liquors were unlawfully possessed, stored, etc. Each reviews by writ of error.

The intoxicating liquor, consisting of 24 pints of moonshine whisky, upwards of 300 pint bottles of beer, and a quantity in process of making, was found by the officers in a house located at 528 Water street, Jackson Mich. A careful reading of the record convinces us that the undisputed proof shows this place was rented by the defendant Anna Pangborn, that she kept roomers and boarders there, and that the defendant Clarence Harter had been one of such roomers and boarders for a little over a month prior to his arrest. None of the liquor was found in the room occupied by him, nor was there any proof that he had any control over or interest in the liquor found on the premises. Both of these defendants testified that Harter was only a roomer and boarder and had nothing whatever to do with the intoxicating liquor found; and there was no proof to the contrary. He had once before been convicted of violating the state prohibition law (Pub. Laws 1917, No. 338), but that alone would not justify holding him on this charge. While the officers were in possession of the house, Harter was permitted to leave the premises for the purpose of calling a physician to attend Anna Pangborn, who had been taken suddenly ill, and he failed to return, but three or four days later he was arrested at the same place. Even this circumstance did not justify submitting to the jury the question of his guilt in the present case. There were other people in the house when the officers arrived, including another man who was also a boarder and roomer, but none of them were charged with being parties to the alleged offense, notwithstanding there was as much reason for holding them guilty of unlawful possession as for holding the defendant Harter. The circuit judge should have directed a verdict of not guilty in accordance with this defendant's motion, made at the close of the people's case and renewed after all the proofs were in.

It is urged in behalf of the defendant Anna Pangborn that there was an unlawful search made of her household. This question was timely raised by a motion to dismiss at the examination before the magistrate and later by a motion to suppress. The proofs show that the sheriff received a telephone message from a woman who said she was Mrs. Thompson, and that her husband was in a house at 528 Water street drunk, and she wished the sheriff would bring him home. The testimony of the officers is that the sheriff and two deputies went to the place designated; that the sheriff and one deputy knocked at the front door, were invited inside, and they entered. The other deputy...