Stadia v. State

• Decision Date: 23 April 1929
• Docket Number: No. 13638.,13638.
• Citation: 166 N.E. 25,89 Ind.App. 192
• Parties: STADIA v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

89 Ind.App. 192

166 N.E. 25

STADIA

v.STATE.

No. 13638.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

April 23, 1929.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Fremont Alford, Judge.

Belle Stadia was convicted of purchasing, manufacturing, possessing, and selling intoxicating liquor and of maintaining a common nuisance and she appeals. Affirmed.

T. Ernest Maholm, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and Edward J. Lennon, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.

McMAHAN, P. J.

Appellant was charged in an affidavit containing five counts: First, purchasing; second, manufacturing; third, possessing; fourth, selling intoxicating liquor; and fifth, maintaining a common nuisance in violation of sections 4 and 24, Acts 1925, p. 144, c. 48, sections 2717 and 2740, Burns' 1926). The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and, upon a general finding of guilty as charged, appellant was sentenced to serve six months in the correctional department of the Indiana women's prison, and fined $500, and costs.

The only error assigned is the overruling of her motion for a new trial, the specifications of which are that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and that it is contrary to law.

The undisputed evidence discloses that appellant and her husband, whether jointly or in the name of the husband is not material, operated a restaurant in the city of Indianapolis, and that the husband was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor at that place; the restaurant was sold, and appellant and her husband moved into a house about seven miles from Indianapolis, where they resided in December, 1926. On the night of December 11, 1926, appellant, in the presence of her husband, sold intoxicating liquor to divers people. Appellant was arrested on the night of December 11, 1926, at which time the officers making the arrest found a large quantityof beer, wine, alcohol, and beer in the process of making. At the time the arrest was made, fourteen to sixteen people were present; ten or twelve of them being school boys, some of whom testified that they bought intoxicating liquor that night from appellant, and that her husband was there at that time.

Appellant does not deny having sold intoxicating liquor as testified to by the several witnesses, nor does she make any claim that the place where she and her husband resided was not being maintained as a place where intoxicating liquor was sold in violation of law. Her only defense is that, being a married woman, and the particular sales testified to by the witnesses having been made by her in the presence of her husband, it will be presumed that she was acting under coercion from her husband, and that for that reason the finding of the court is contrary to law.

[1] Under the common law, where a married woman was indicted for a crime, excepting treason or murder, if the act was committed in the presence of her husband, it was presumed that she acted under his...