State v. Brown
| Citation | 193 S.W. 902 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 12370.,12370. |
| Parties | STATE v. BROWN. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Platte County; A. D. Burns, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Jess Brown was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in less quantities than three gallons, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Guy B. Park and A. D. Gresham, both of Platte City, for appellant. Frank Settle, Pros. Atty., of Platte City, for the State.
Defendant was indicted and convicted upon a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in less quantities than three gallons, and he appealed.
The conviction was obtained on the testimony of one John Doyle. This witness' testimony tended to prove that he had bought of the defendant a pint bottle of beer, and we believe that it was a question for the jury upon the witness' testimony as to whether the witness bought of the defendant one pint of beer, or chipped in with several others and bought a case of beer or more than three gallons of beer. The defense was that defendant had sold a case of beer, and that he had never at any time sold a pint of beer. At the instance of the state the court gave as one of his instructions the following:
"The court instructs the jury that the law does not permit a man to evade the law by mere tricks or devices or schemes; and in this connection, a man cannot sell intoxicating liquor in less quantities than three gallons without having a license as a dramshop keeper, or other legal authority to sell the same, and evade the penalty of the law merely by pretending to sell larger quantities than three gallons, when such intoxicating liquor was sold by him under any other such scheme in quantities less than three gallons."
The statement of the court, in the instruction that "the court instructs the jury that the law does not permit a man to evade the law by mere tricks, devices or schemes," was a harmful comment on the evidence, in addition to being argumentative. Defendant was making the special defense that he had sold the liquor by case and not by bottle. Under the instruction given the jury might have been confused, and have found that even the selling of a case of beer under the circumstances claimed by the defendant would make him guilty under the instruction. State v. Fleetwood, 143 Mo. App. loc. cit. 701, 127 S. W. 934.
If the court thought this to have been a case where the jury should have been instructed on the question of whether d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Battles
...... jury, in that the said Instructions were improper comments. and interpretations by the court on and of the evidence in. the case, and thus conveyed to the jury the court's. opinion as to matters in issue -- all to the prejudice of. this defendant. Sec. 4083, R.S. 1939; State v. Brown, 193 S.W. 902; State v. Drew, 213 S.W. 106; 23 C.J.S., sec. 1150; State v. Cole, 213 S.W. 110; State v. Cruts, 288 Mo. 107, 231 S.W. 602;. State v. Gabriel, 301 Mo. 365, 256 S.W. 765;. State v. Ivanhoe, 238 Mo.App. 200, 177 S.W.2d 657;. State v. Johnson, 234 S.W. 794; State v. Lemon, 263 S.W. ......
-
State v. Battles
...conveyed to the jury the court's opinion as to matters in issue — all to the prejudice of this defendant. Sec. 4083, R.S. 1939; State v. Brown, 193 S.W. 902; State v. Drew, 213 S.W. 106; 23 C.J.S., sec. 1150; State v. Cole, 213 S.W. 110; State v. Cruts, 288 Mo. 107, 231 S.W. 602; State v. G......
-
State v. Ivanhoe
...State v. Welch (Mo.), 278 S.W. 755; State v. Rozell (Mo.), 225 S.W. 931; State v. Fleetwood, 143 Mo. App. 698, 127 S.W. 934; State v. Brown, 198 S.W. 902; Ford v. Gray, 131 Mo. App. 240, 110 S.W. 692; 23 C.J.S., par. 1305, p. 891. Instruction S-2 states an abstract proposition of law prejud......