State v. Bunc
| Decision Date | 19 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 25766.,25766. |
| Citation | 270 S.W. 282 |
| Parties | STATE v. BUNC |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shannon County; E. P. Dorris, Judge.
Luther Bunch was convicted of unlawfully using a still and other distilling equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor for sale, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Wm. L. Vandeventer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Statement.
On March 7, 1924, the prosecuting attorney of Shannon county, Mo., filed in the circuit court of said county an information, which, without caption and verification, reads as follows:
The defendant was formally arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. He was placed upon trial before a jury and, on March 10, 1924, the following verdict was returned:
"We, " the jury find the defendant, Luther Bunch, guilty, as charged in the information and we do assess his punishment at two (2) years in the state penitentiary.
"J. W. Smith, Foreman."
Defendant, in due time, filed motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, both of which were overruled. After judgment was entered, and sentence pronounced on defendant in conformity to the verdict aforesaid, he was granted an appeal to this court. The defendant interposed a demurrer to the evidence at the conclusion of the state's case, which was overruled. He stood upon said demurrer, and offered no testimony at the trial of the cause.
The evidence of the state tends to show that W. B. Powell, deputy sheriff of Shannon county, Mo., who lived at Eminence in said county, had a search warrant for the farm of Andrew Bunch, located in Moore township. Appellant is the son of said Andrew Bunch. The deputy sheriff aforesaid, armed with said search warrant, searched the premises of Andrew Bunch, and found in the smokehouse of the latter, a half bushel of sprouted corn, and up in the field of said Andrew Bunch, found three barrels of mash, and an iron barrel and doubler, used in the manufacture "of intoxicating liquor, but no worm was found. After the place had been searched, and the mash found, Powell came back to the house of Andrew Bunch, and defendant went with him up to the still. It had snowed the night before, and they tracked the wagon to where the mash was found. While at the house, the deputy sheriff said to Andrew Bunch:
"I found this mash and stuff on your farm, but you are not able to go to town, but in my judgment when you get able to come the prosecuting attorney will get a warrant out against you, and you come."
Thereupon Luther Bunch, the defendant, spoke up and said "No," the stuff belonged to him, and that his partner had the worm. There was other evidence offered on the part of the state tending to show that the defendant, when he was brought to town, made the statement that he had made whisky and sold it in three counties, to wit, Reynolds, Dent, and Shannon. He was referring to the still at this time. This was substantially all of the testimony in the case. The pleadings, motions, instructions, and rulings of the court, as far as necessary, will be considered in the opinion.
I. The body of the information is heretofore set out in full, and is sufficient in law, as to both form and substance. Laws of 1923, section 2, page 237; State v. Nash, 283 Mo. 32, 222 S.W. 396; State v. Brown (Mo. Sup.) 2.62 S. W. loc. Cit. 711.'
Section 2 of the Laws of 1923, supra, reads as follows:
"If any person shall use in this state any still, worm, doubler, or other distilling, or brewing equipment or utensils whatsoever, in the process of distilling, brewing, or otherwise manufacturing any intoxicating liquor for sale or transportation for sale contrary to the provisions of this act, he shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of two years. * *. *"
The appellant has filed no brief in this court, but we find on examination that in his motion for a new trial he complains of the court's rulings in several particulars which will be considered.
II. Defendant filed a motion to quash the information, on the ground that it attempts to charge more than one offense in the same count, and because defendant was not informed as to which charge he would be compelled to meet. The information is heretofore set out and speaks for itself. It sufficiently informed defendant as to the charge which he was required to defend against, and is not subject to the criticism leveled against it. The court committed no error in overruling the motion to quash the information.
III. The defendant filed a motion to require the state to produce the search warrant under which the deputy sheriff of Shannon county, Mo.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial