Spratley v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 20 March 1930
• Citation: 152 S.E. 362
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: SPRATLEY . v. COMMONWEALTH.

152 S.E. 362

SPRATLEY .

v.COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

March 20, 1930.

Error to Hustings Court of Portsmouth.

Charlie Spratley, with two others, was convicted for violation of the prohibition law, and named defendant brings error.

Judgment against defendant named reversed, and cause remanded for new trial.

Harry A. Brinkley, of Portsmouth, for plaintiff in error.

John R. Saunders, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

EPES, J.

The plaintiff in error (Charlie Spratley) was jointly indicted with Clarence Stancil and Willie Stancil for violation of the prohibition law. The first count of the indictment was the so-called omnibus count. The second count charged that Clarence Stancil, Willie Stancil, and Charlie Spratley did on July 6, 1928, unlawfully and feloniously transport ardent spirits in an automobile, said Clarence Stancil, Willie Stancil, and Charlie Spratley having therein at the time a loaded pistol. The third count charged all three men with the unlawful possession of ardent spirits on July 6, 1928. The defendants all pleaded not guilty and were tried jointly. The jury found the following verdict, "We, the jury, find the defendants guilty, as charged in the indictment and fix their punishment as follows: Clarence Stancil three years in penitentiary, Charley Spratley and Willie Stancil each two years in the penitentiary." The defendants moved the court to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and evidence, which motion the court overruled and entered judgment on the verdict against all three defendants.

All three defendants filed their petition for a writ of error, assigning as error that the evidence is not sufficient to support a verdict of guilty against Charlie Spratley and Clarence Stancil. This court refused to grant a writ of error to Willie Stancil and Clarence Stancil, but granted a writ of error and supersedeas to Charlie Spratley.

The only witness for the commonwealth was Leroy Saunders, the police officer who arrested the defendants. The only witnesses for the defense were the three defendants.

Leroy Saunders testified that between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning he observed a car coming down County street in the city of Portsmouth, and becoming suspicious, he ordered the occupants of the car to drive to the side of the street and stop, which they did; that upon investigation he found that the car was a Dodge touring car which was occupied by Clarence Stancil, Willie Stancil, and Charlie Spratley; that Clarence Stancil occupied the front seat and was operating the car; that Willie Stancil and Charlie Spratley were on the back seat; that on the floor in front of Willie Stancil and Charlie Spratley were three five-gallon flasks of whisky in two bags; that on the back seat with them were a gallon jug and a one-half gallon jug of whisky, both in paper bags, and two pint bottles, both unwrapped and uncovered, one full and one half full of whisky; that he took from the front seat beside Clarence Stancil a loaded revolver and from somewhere in the car a belt containing cartridges; that he arrested the three occupants of the car, at which time Clarence Stancil told him that the whisky, the car, and the gun were all his (Clarence Stancil's) property, but that at the trial in the police court Willie Stancil testified that the whisky belonged to him (Willie Stancil), and that the others had nothing to do with it. Whether the jugs and bottles on the back seat were so placed as to be next to Charlie Spratley or were so placed that Willie Stancil was seated between them and Charlie Spratley does not appear from the testimony of this or any other witness; nor does this witness testify as to where in the automobile he found the cartridge belt; but Clarence Standi says it was in the pocket of the car.

Clarence Stancil testified that he had that day driven his car to his father's home near Churchland, and, finding that a dance was to be given near by, he left his car and walked to the dance hall and attended the dance; that when he returned his brother, Willie Stancil, told him that he had used the car and had put some vegetables in the back of the car; that he knew nothing of the packages which were in burlap bags, except what his brother had told him, and did not know that it was intoxicating liquor; that he got in the front seat and his brother Willie in the back seat and started home; that when they got to a place on the road between Churchland and Portsmouth known as "The Three Corners" they met Charlie Spratley who asked them to give him a lift to Portsmouth, which they did; and that Charlie Spratley knew nothing of what was in the car, as far as he knew. He also testified that the pistol which was lying on the seat beside him and the cartridge belt which was in the pocket of the car he had taken that day as security for a debt due him and was simply carrying it to town to keep.

Willie Stancil testified that he had bought the whisky and had put it in his brother's car while he was gone; and that he told Clarence Stancil that the bags contained vegetables; that Clarence Stancil owned none of the whisky and knew nothing of the contents of these bags and had nothing to do with the whisky; that he (Willie Stancil) had no knowledge of the pistol in the car; that they picked up Charlie Spratley at "The Three Corners" on the road between Churchland and Portsmouth when he asked for a lift; and that Charlie Spratley had no knowledge of the whisky in the car and had nothing to do with it.

Charlie Spratley testified that he had gone to "Three Corners" to visit friends and was getting ready to wait for the bus which came by there when he saw this car with the Stancils in it, which he hailed and asked for a lift; that he was taken in and saw the bags, but did not know that there was whisky in them and knew nothing of their contents until they were all arrested; that he had no interest in the whisky and would not have ridden in the car if he had known there was whisky in it; and that he did nob know of or see the pistol until they were arrested.

This is all the evidence in the case. It is plainly insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty as to Charlie Spratley,

The mere presence of a person at a place where a crime is committed, even though he knew that it is being committed, is not a crime, nor alone sufficient to establish his participation in the crime, nor to constitute him an aider or abettor of the crime. 1 Bish. New Cr. Law (9th Ed.) §§ 632 and 633; 1 Wharton Cr. Law (11th Ed.) § 246 and 249; 16 C. J. (Criminal Law) § 120 and 121 and cases there cited; Rasnake v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 677, 115 S. E. 543; Kemp v. Commonwealth, 80 Va. 443 at page 450; Wooden v. Commonwealth, 117 Va. 930, 86 S. E. 305, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1032; Reynolds v. Commonwealth, 33 Grat. (74 Va.) 834; Carey v. State, 194 Ind. 626, 144 N. E. 22; Reese v. State, 157 Ga. 766, 122 S. E. 195; Richardson v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 17, 228 S. W. 1094.

Except in so far as modified by statute, the rules of law and evidence are the same in prosecutions for violation of statutes prohibiting the manufacture, possession, transportation, or sale of intoxicating liquors as in prosecutions for other crimes.

The mere presence of a person in an automobile in which intoxicating liquor is being transported, with or without his knowledge, which is not shown to be owned by him or under his possession or control, single or joint, is not a crime; nor is it made by the statutes of Virginia prima facie evidence of his transportation of or aiding or abetting the transportation of the intoxicating liquor in the automobile; nor is it alone sufficient to sustain a conviction of him upon a charge of transporting intoxicating liquor. Howard v. Com. 138 Va. 835, 122 S. E. 112; Woytek v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 122, 272 S. W. 131; Murray v. State, 19 Ariz. 49, 165 P. 315; Stafford V. U. S. (C. C. A. Ky.) 300 F. 537; Howard v. State, 193 Ind. 599, 141 N. E. 341; Richardson v. State, 89 Tex, Cr. R. 17, 228 S. W. 1094; Walling v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. it. 147, 250 S. W. 167.

To support his...