State v. Cottrell

• Decision Date: 06 February 1926
• Docket Number: 26,496
• Citation: 243 P. 296,120 Kan. 312
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. V. R. COTTRELL, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

243 P. 296

120 Kan. 312

THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. V. R. COTTRELL, Appellant

No. 26,496

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 6, 1926

Decided January, 1926.

Appeal from Meade district court; KARL MILLER, judge pro tem.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS--Unlawful Possession--Forfeiture of Transporting Vehicle--Evidence. Record of defendant's trial and conviction of the offense of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors examined, and held, (a) that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment of defendant's guilt, and (b) sufficient to support the judgment condemning and forfeiting his automobile as a nuisance.

Frank S. Sullivan, of Meade, for the appellant.

Charles B. Griffith, attorney-general, C. A. Burnett, assistant attorney-general, Alex R. Wilson, county attorney, and F. C Price, of Ashland, for the appellee.

OPINION

DAWSON, J.:

The defendant was convicted of the offense of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, and his automobile in which the liquor was found was condemned as a nuisance and forfeited.

In his appeal defendant contends that the state proved "but one ingredient of the crime charged, viz.: intoxicating liquor was found in the automobile owned and driven by the defendant." Defendant argues that this modicum of proof was insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment against him. However, even this argument concedes that the state's evidence went so far, and a resort to the abstracts discloses a good deal of other evidence, not the least significant of which was the statements of defendant and his companion at the time of defendant's arrest and the seizure of two gallons of intoxicants in the locked rear compartment of his automobile. Defendant said:

"Charley, don't be too hard on us. . . . We just got these two gallons for a party for our own individual use."

The companion or guest who had been riding with defendant in the car said, in defendant's presence and hearing:

"Keller, make it as light as you can on us, because there was four or five other cars there loading up at the same time we was; we just got this for our own use. . . . We don't want to be stuck hard on it just because we was caught with it."

Not only was defendant's own statement highly probative ( State v. Gillespie, 62 Kan. 469, 63 P. 742; State v. Campbell, 73 Kan. 688, 85 P. 784, syl. P 3 85 P. 784; State v. Pearce, 87 Kan. 457, 124 P. 814; State v. Dilgar, 111 Kan. 794, 208 P. 620, syl. P 3, 208 P. 620), but also that of his companion made in his presence and hearing. (State v. Cruse, 112 Kan. 486, 212 P. 81, syl. P 6, 212 P. 81, and see State v. Moskowitz, 115 Kan. 485, 223 P. 279.) Altogether the state's prima facie case against defendant was...