State v. Blocker
| Decision Date | 13 August 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 3837.,3837. |
| Citation | 274 S.W. 1097 |
| Parties | STATE v. BLOCKER et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.
C. R. Blocker and C. Winters were convicted for violating the Prohibition Law, and they appeal. Reversed as to C. Winters, and affirmed as to C. R. Blocker.
Hall & Bradley, of Kennett, for appellants.
James V. Billings, Pros. Atty., of Kennett, for the State.
Prosecution upon information for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Both defendants were convicted, and punishment of each fixed at a fine of $200 and six months in jail. Defendants appealed.
The evidence for the state tended to show that defendant Blocker was the proprietor of a café in the town of Holcomb in Dunklin county, Mo., and defendant Winters was employed by Blocker. Mr. Blocker had purchased the café from another party, and took possession about the 12th of January, 1924. On the 15th of the same month a search warrant was issued to search the café premises, and was served by the constable and his deputy. They entered the building and inquired for Mr. Blocker, and were informed by Mrs. Blocker that he was away. The defendant Winters was in the room at the time. The constable then read the search warrant to Mrs. Blocker. While the constable was reading the warrant, the deputy constable saw defendant Winters go into a back room and pour something into a jug sitting by a coal oil tank. In the search that followed, the officers examined this jug and found "white mule," a name for a certain kind of whisky, in the jug with coal oil on top of it. Defendants both denied any knowledge of there being any liquor on the premises.
The information is sufficient, and we find no error in the record proper. We think the evidence sufficient to take the case to the jury as to defendant Blocker, but do not think it is sufficent to sustain the conviction of defendant Winters. The charge was unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Mr. Winters was merely an employee, and proof of that fact alone does not show that he was in possession of anything located in the building where he was working. The state seeks to hold him by proof of the fact that he poured coal oil into the jug containing the liquor, evidently for the purpose of concealing from the officers the fact that the jug contained liquor. It does not seem to us that the fact that he was employed by Mr. Blocker and that he poured coal oil into the jug...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Quinn
...State v. Varnell, 289 S.W. 845; State v. Nelson, 21 S.W.2d 190; State v. Stewart, 289 S.W. 943; State v. Keltner, 278 S.W. 825; State v. Blocker, 274 S.W. 1097; v. Dildine, 269 S.W. 653; State v. Ferrell, 248 S.W. 979; State v. Lane, 221 Mo.App. 148; 1 Cyc. of Evi., p. 104. (2) Appellant co......
-
State v. Nelson
...thereof, and the presumption would prevail that possession of the liquor went with ownership and possession of the car. State v. Blocker (Mo. App.) 274 S.W. 1097; v. Huff, 317 Mo. 299, 296 S.W. 121. There is no proof that defendant drank from the bottle containing the liquor. The suspicion ......
-
State v. Griffin
...or introduce any testimony. That a prima facie showing of his possession of the liquor was made, there can be no question. State v. Blocker (Mo. App.) 274 S. W. 1097; State v. Lee (Mo. App.) 298 S. W. 1044; State v. Parks (Mo. App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 1107; State v. Sillyman (Mo. Sup.) 7 S.W.(2d) ......
-
State v. West
...is not sufficient to reduce submission to the jury on the question of possession. [State v. Carter, 36 S.W.2d 917; State v. Blocker (Mo. App.), 274 S.W. 1097; State v. Huff, 317 Mo. 299, 296 S.W. 121; v. Lunfrunk, 279 S.W. 733.] In order to convict defendants in this case, the jury would ha......