Shacklett v. State

• Citation: 150 N.E. 758,197 Ind. 323
• Decision Date: 25 February 1926
• Docket Number: No. 24537.,24537.
• Parties: SHACKLETT v. STATE.
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

197 Ind. 323

150 N.E. 758

SHACKLETT

v.STATE.

No. 24537.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 25, 1926.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Frank A. Symmes, Judge.

Laura Shacklett was convicted of unlawfully selling, bartering, exchanging, giving away, furnishing, and otherwise disposing of intoxicating liquor, and she appeals. Affirmed.

Alvah J. Rucker, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MYERS, J.

Appellant has appealed from a judgment on a finding of guilty of unlawfully selling, bartering, exchanging, giving away, furnishing, and otherwise disposing of intoxicating liquor. Acts 1923, p. 70, § 1. The overruling of her motion for a new trial wherein she asserts that the finding of the court was contrary to law and not sustained by sufficient evidence is the only error assigned.

All of the evidence for the state was given by two police officers. One of them testified that he searched appellant's house seven or eight times within the previous nine months for intoxicating liquor, but none was found. He arrested appellants husband in his own house, charging him with vagrancy, but he was discharged. This officer's home was at Whittier Place, Irvington. Appellant's home was at 512 East Court street, Indianapolis, and within that officer's official district. His hours on duty were from 11 p. m. to 7 a. m., but without request from any one, on August 14, 1923, at about 8:10 in the evening, dressed in plain clothes, with another police officer likewise dressed, he claims to have driven in his own Ford sedan automobile to the opposite side of the street in front of appellant's home, where, upon seeing appellant in her door, he asked her to bring him a half pint. The light was sufficient for him to recognize her, but she could not recognize him in the car. She refused, saying the police were near by. He then drove away, and in a few minutes returned and told her that “the police had gone east on Market street, and to hurry up with my pint, and she sent out and got a half pint.” Both officers testifiedthat appellant did not go into the house, but in two or three minutes they saw some one give her the bottle, which she brought to the automobile, and gave to the officer thus active in her entrapment, and requested $1.25. No money was paid. The officer from Irvington testified that he handed the bottle containing the white mule whisky to his associate, and said to appellant: “You are under arrest.” He then stepped out of the car, “took hold of her and showed her my badge,” and not until then did she know me. She requested that we let her go. “I said I will let you go to jail,” and took her down to the police station. Appellant testified that she knew the officer and recognized him when he first drove up; also that her refusal to go out riding with him accounts for his special activities against her.

Counsel for appellant earnestly insists that the evidence in this case shows that his client was the victim of an active entrapment; that it fails to show a sale, a giving away, a furnishing or a disposing of intoxicating liquor; that, if there was a breach of the law, appellant's husband was responsible therefor.

On the subject of entrapment, something has been...