State v. Clark
| Decision Date | 20 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | 30605 |
| Citation | 33 S.W.2d 890 |
| Parties | STATE v. CLARK |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Stratton Shartel, Atty. Gen., and Walter E. Sloat, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
Upon his trial on the charge of transporting moonshine whisky in Grundy county, defendant was convicted, sentenced to two years in prison, and has appealed.
One of the assignments of error is that the evidence was insufficient to authorize conviction. We do not find it necessary, however, to make an extended statement of the facts shown by the evidence, all of which was offered by the state.
On an evening late in February, 1929, the sheriff of Grundy county his two deputies, and a police officer of the city of Trenton were in an automobile driven by one of the sheriff's deputies, when they saw defendant and one Cox enter a Ford automobile and drive eastward out of Trenton. They followed them. At a crossroad east of Trenton, Cox got out of the automobile, and the Ford automobile turned back toward Trenton. In a few moments the same automobile passed the place where the sheriff and his party were sitting in their parked automobile. Pursuit was given, and the Ford automobile was overtaken and passed. Before the sheriff's men could get out of their automobile and reach the Ford automobile, it was turned around in the road and driven rapidly back into Trenton. The sheriff's automobile renewed the chase and overtook the Ford automobile, but did not get it stopped until it reached Trenton, where its driver turned the Ford automobile into an alley and jumped out, and escaped in the darkness into the nearby railroad yards. As the driver jumped out into the light of the pursuing automobile, he was recognized as the defendant.
The floor of the Ford automobile was found to be saturated with a liquid which had been spilled on it and had run down on to the running board of the automobile. The officers tasted and smelled this liquid, and testified that it was moonshine whisky. The captured automobile was driven to the jail, whereto the prosecuting attorney was promptly summoned. He testified that the liquid he found in the automobile and on the running board was moonshine whisky. There also was found in the automobile the neck of a broken five-gallon glass bottle, still containing the cork. This cork was said to smell of moonshine whisky.
The officers testified that they saw a wet streak on the concrete pavement over which defendant rode in the fleeing Ford automobile, and that this streak reeked with the odor of moonshine whisky as they passed over it in pursuit. That wet streak was not there when they passed over the road a few moments before, and no automobiles, except their own and the one driven by defendant, had been over the road meanwhile. After the unsuccessful chase, the officers returned to the wet streak on the pavement and smelled and tasted the liquid which had collected in small quantities. At the trial these officers testified that the liquid they there found was moonshine whisky. One of the officers drove out on the same road the next morning in company with his wife, and both testified to the finding of a gunny sack containing the broken remains of a five-gallon glass bottle. The sack gave forth the same odor of moonshine whisky, and was found at a bridge over which defendant drove his automobile during his flight back to Trenton. The defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial