Shine v. State

• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: EWBANK
• Citation: Shine v. State, 196 Ind. 686, 148 N.E. 411 (Ind. 1925)
• Decision Date: 26 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 24665.,24665.
• Parties: SHINE v. STATE.

196 Ind. 686

148 N.E. 411

SHINE

v.STATE.

No. 24665.^*

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 26, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hancock County; J. P. Walker, Judge.

Elizabeth Shine was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquors; and she appeals. Affirmed.

Fred R. Bonifield and O. S. Boling, both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

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

EWBANK, J.

Appellant was charged by affidavit with unlawfully manufacturing intoxicatingliquor, and was found guilty. The assignment of errors presents for review the overruling of her motions to quash the affidavit and for a new trial, respectively.

[1][2] The affidavit charged that on a day in April, 1922, at Hancock county, Ind. appellant “did then and there unlawfully manufacture intoxicating liquor, to wit, 49 quarts of beer, 4 pints of beer, and one 12-gallon jar of beer, contrary,” etc. A criminal offense was sufficiently charged by the allegation, in the language of the statute, that the defendant at the time and place named “did then and there unlawfully manufacture intoxicating liquor.” Asher v. State (Ind. Sup.) 142 N. E. 407. And the charge that the liquor was intoxicating was not negatived by the allegation that it was “beer.” Turner v. State, 175 Ind. 1, 93 N. E. 225;Welsh v. State, 126 Ind. 71, 25 N. E. 883, 9 L. R. A. 664. It was not error to overrule the motion to quash.

[3][4][5] The motion for a new trial was based on the specification that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. The rule by which the sufficiency of the evidence must be determined in this court is to accept as true all of the evidence and all inferences from the facts of which there is evidence which tend to prove what the jury found by its verdict, and to reject as lacking credibility all that tends to prove the contrary. There was evidence that certain officers, with a search warrant, went to appellant's home in Hancock county, Ind., and there found 48 quart bottles of beer and 4 pint bottles of beer all capped, 10 or 12 gallons of beer in a large jar, capping machine, and a lot of empty bottles; that the liquid in the jar had foam all over it that stood up above the top of the jar 3 or 4 inches, and looked like beer and smelled like beer; that, when taken to the jail, some of the bottles blew up, making a noise like a shotgun, and had the odor of beer-the odor of hops or something; that some of the bottles that did not burst were afterward emptied into a jug that was kept...