State v. Copelman
| Decision Date | 11 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | 23,968 |
| Citation | 110 Kan. 749,205 P. 360 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JACK COPELMAN, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1922
Appeal from Johnson district court; JABEZ O. RANKIN, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. LIQUOR LAW--Maintaining a Nuisance--Sufficient Evidence to Convict. Upon the charge that the defendant was maintaining a nuisance by keeping a place where intoxicating liquors were sold and where persons were permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquor it is held that the evidence produced was sufficient to warrant the conviction of defendant.
2. SAME--Nuisance--Sufficient Description of Place. A description of the place is sufficient which advises the defendant of the charge he is called upon to meet, and will enable the sheriff to identify the place in the event that an abatement is adjudged.
3 SAME--Evidence. Error assigned on a ruling in the admission of evidence held not to be ground for reversal.
John T. Little, C. B. Little, both of Olathe, and Joseph F. Aylward, of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellant; Harry L. Jacobs, of Kansas City, Mo., of counsel.
Richard J. Hopkins, attorney-general, J. K. Rankin, assistant attorney-general, and F. R. Ogg, county attorney, for the appellee.
Jack Copelman was convicted of keeping a place where intoxicating liquors were unlawfully sold and given away, and where people were permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking such liquors as a beverage in violation of law.
His principal complaint on this appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment. When the place was raided by the sheriff and several of his deputies about midnight they found a number of persons there eating and drinking, some of whom appeared to be intoxicated. They did not see any sales of liquor made to these persons but according to the testimony of the state the officers found a bottle of gin and several bottles partly filled with other intoxicating liquors. About a half wagonload of empty bottles and jugs were found on the place, and the smell of these indicated that recently there had been whisky in them. While the arrest and raid was in progress, four girls came into the place, some of whom were under the influence of intoxicating liquor. When the sheriff entered the place and was making the arrest and instituting a search, a bottle of whisky was thrown out of a window where a deputy sheriff had been stationed.
The defendant first denied that he was running the place, but later admitted that he was the proprietor and told the officers to go ahead and make the search. When the bottle of gin was found he remarked: "The jig is off, you have got me." While no direct evidence of sales was shown, the offense charged may be established by circumstantial evidence, and certainly the proof produced was sufficient to warrant the inference drawn by the jury and the judgment pronounced by the court. (The State...
To continue reading
Request your trial