State v. Beaudette

• Decision Date: 27 November 1922
• Citation: State v. Beaudette, 122 Me. 44, 118 A. 719 (Me. 1922)
• Parties: STATE v. BEAUDETTE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

118 A. 719

STATE

v. BEAUDETTE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 27, 1922.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, York County, at Law.

Henry Beaudette was found guilty of having liquor in his possession for the purpose of sale, and he excepts. Exceptions sustained. Judgment for defendant.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, PHILBROOK, DUNN, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.

Edward S. Titconrb, Co. Atty., of Sanford, for the State.

Leroy Haley, of Biddeford, for respondent.

DUNN, J. Possession of intoxicating liquor intended for sale in this state is a misdemeanor. R. S. c. 127, 127. Prosecutions may be by indictment (R. S. c. 127, § 40), or by complaint; municipal, police, and trial justice courts having jurisdiction to try and punish (R. S. c. 127, § 40). An auxiliary remedy, available upon complaint to any subordinate court, is contained in a provision authorizing a not unreasonable first-instance search for liquor alleged, on a complainant's belief, to be kept with wrongful intent. If found, the liquor is to be seized and held, pending decision regarding its forfeiture; while he who is charged as being guilty of the keeping is required to be arrested and brought to trial. R. S. c. 127, § 29. On conviction, the punishment is the same, whichever the form of the prosecution. Laws 1917, c. 291.

The municipal court in Biddeford issued a search warrant against a place occupied by one Beaudette. Intoxicating liquors were there found and seized. Beaudette was arrested, tried, and acquitted. Subsequently a grand jury indicted him for having had the identical liquors in his possession. He interposed a plea of former jeopardy. A demurrer to that plea was sustained. Exceptions were reserved. Conformably to the court's direction, the respondent pleaded over, and the trial proceeded to a verdict. R. S. c. 82, § 58. Now the exceptions are argued.

There are instances in the criminal law of two offenses in one transaction, as operating a factory, inexcusably, on the Lord's Day, and, in the operating of the factory, then employing children under a specified age. R. S. c. 126, § 35; c. 49, § 20. The purposes of these two statutes are unrelated. The first is designed to aid in keeping the Christian Sabbath holy. The second is to guard the young against work in manufacturing or mechanical establishments. A conviction of one of these offenses would be no bar to a conviction of the other, because they are entirely distinct.

Regardless of great similarity in the facts, there may be a marked difference in two crimes. State v. Jellison, 104 Me. 281, 71 Atl. 716. The same evidence in both cases may justify the conviction of a husband for maintaining a liquor nuisance and the prosecution of his wife for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors. Commonwealth v. Welch, 97 Mass. 593. The act of maintaining a liquor nuisance is distinct from that of the illegal possession of liquor, though essentially the same in origin. State v. Wold, 96 Me. 401, 52 Atl. 909. So the offense of keeping a tippling shop and being a common seller of intoxicating liquors are separate matters. State v. Inness, 53 Me. 536. The same is true of making a single sale and being a common seller of liquor (State v. Coombs, 32 Me. 529; State v. Maher, 35 Me. 225), or of keeping liquor for sale and a sale of the same liquor (Taylor v. State, 5 Ga: App. 237, 62 S. E. 1048). A person thus tried a second time is not put twice in jeopardy "for the same offense."

Beaudette should not be brought into danger of punishment for the same offense more than once. If, as he set up, he had already been tried and acquitted of the offense, then,...