State v. Cummins
| Decision Date | 11 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | 29556 |
| Citation | 22 S.W.2d 777 |
| Parties | STATE v. CUMMINS |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Stratton Shartel, Atty. Gen., and Henry Depping, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
In an information filed by the prosecuting attorney in the circuit court of Pulaski county, defendant was charged with the felony of selling moonshine whisky. The jury found him guilty, and assessed his punishment at a fine of $ 500. He appealed.
The facts adduced on behalf of the state warrant the finding that on January 27, 1928, one Griffin, employed by the sheriff of Pulaski county, accompanied by one Prewitt, drove to the residence of defendant, situated in Pulaski county. He found defendant there feeding chickens. Griffin asked defendant if he had any whisky. Defendant conducted Griffin to within about 15 feet of the west gate of defendant's yard, and from among the grass and leaves, with which it was covered defendant produced a pint of moonshine whisky, for which Griffin paid him the sum of $ 1.50. Defendant handed the bottle of whisky to Prewitt, who drank a part of it, and handed the bottle and the remaining contents to Griffin. Griffin stated that to the best of his knowledge it was moonshine whisky. The bottle and its contents were handed to a Mr. Brittain for safe-keeping, who placed a tag on it and put it in a bank vault, and produced it and identified it on the trial as whisky. The evidence for defendant tended to show defendant, Prewitt, and others testifying that they were present on the occasion Griffin visited defendant's home, that defendant did not sell or deliver whisky to Griffin, and that they did not see such transaction as Griffin related. They said that Prewitt was there relative to a sale of hogs, and that the conversation related to that subject.
I. We have examined the record proper, as we must, including the information and the verdict, and find that it conforms to proper procedure. Similar informations have been approved. State v. Martin (Mo. Sup.) 292 S.W. 39; State v. Hedrick (Mo. Sup.) 296 S.W. 152. The verdict is general, finding the defendant guilty as charged in the information, and assessing the punishment. The form has been approved. State v. Martin, supra. The charge was instituted before a justice of the peace to afford a preliminary hearing, but, as defendant waived it, no complaint is tenable. State v. Mason (Mo. Sup.) 14 S.W.2d 611.
II. The only reviewable question preserved in the motion for a new trial relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. There is substantial proof in the bill of exceptions (as related) tending to show that defendant sold moonshine whisky. Even though defendant's proof was in conflict therewith, nevertheless the...
To continue reading
Request your trial