Skidmore v. Com.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1924 |
| Parties | SKIDMORE v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Powel County.
T. G Skidmore was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, and appeals. Reversed for new trial.
C. F Spencer, of Winchester, for appellant.
Frank E. Daugherty, Atty. Gen., and Moorman Ditto, Asst. Atty Gen., for the Commonwealth.
Appellant Skidmore, was convicted in the Powel circuit court of the offense of having in possession intoxicating liquors not for sacramental, medicinal, scientific, or mechanical purposes, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $200 and 30 days in the county jail. He appeals.
He and two other men were sitting in or near the public highway when the jailer and other peace officers drove up in an automobile and saw appellant with a jar containing whisky in his hands, which he passed to another member of the party, who returned it to Skidmore and then Skidmore again handed it to the same party, and the latter threw it over the fence where the officers later found it.
It is appellant Skidmore's contention that he did not have the liquor in possession within the meaning and intent of our prohibition statutes, for he says it was not his whisky, but that of another member of the party with him, and that he only had it in his hands for the purpose of taking a drink; that he was in the act of taking a drink when the officers came up, and that he handed the whisky to another member of the party for the purpose of avoiding conviction for having it in his possession; that the owner of the whisky was constructively in possession of it while appellant took the drink; and that appellant was not, in legal contemplation, at any time in possession of the liquor.
Another member of the drinking party admitted he was the owner of the liquor and that appellant Skidmore had no interest therein. In fact, all three members of the drinking party gave testimony to the effect that appellant Skidmore, did not own the liquor, but had it in his hands merely for the purpose of taking a drink as the guest of one of that party who did own the liquor.
Appellant also testified he took a drink of the liquor because he was sick, and this evidence was not disputed.
The court, in instructing the jury, did not submit the question of who owned the liquor, or what constituted possession within the meaning of the prohibition statu...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v. State
... ... possession. Baender v. Barnett, Sheriff, 255 U.S ... 224, 41 S.Ct. 271, 65 L.Ed. 597; Skidmore v. Comm., ... 204 Ky. 451, 264 S.W. 1053; Anderson v. State, 132 ... Miss. 147, 96 So. 163; Brazeale v. State, 133 Miss ... 171, 97 So. 525; ... ...
-
State v. Hornaday, 5944-III-8
...defendant's intent to control or distribute liquor. See Brooks v. Commonwealth, 206 Ky. 720, 268 S.W. 339 (1925); Skidmore v. Commonwealth, 204 Ky. 451, 264 S.W. 1053 (1924); Sizemore v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 273, 259 S.W. 337 (1924). The fact these cases can be distinguished from the prese......
-
People v. Valot
...control: State v. Williams (1926), 117 Or. 238, 243 P. 563; State v. Lane (1927), 221 Mo.App. 148, 297 S.W. 708; Skidmore v. Commonwealth (1924), 204 Ky. 451, 264 S.W. 1053. 8 Parenthetically, there was no evidence that Valot was present when the marijuana was While there is evidence placin......
-
Benton v. Commonwealth
...the liquor, but only had it in his hands for purposes of taking a drink as a guest of one of the people who had provided the alcohol. The Skidmore itself relied upon Sizemore v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 273, 259 S.W. 337 (1924), wherein the Court held that the act of handling a bottle of whisk......