State v. Davis
| Decision Date | 03 July 1931 |
| Docket Number | 30,145 |
| Citation | 300 P. 1114,133 Kan. 571 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHESTER DAVIS, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1931.
Appeal from Coffey district court; ALONZO C. MCCARTY, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS--Possession--Sufficiency of Evidence. The evidence concerning the possession of intoxicating liquors has been examined and held sufficient to support the verdict of guilty.
2. CRIMINAL LAW--Evidence--Admissions. Statements of a third party made in the presence of one accused of crime, which he neither explains nor denies, are ordinarily admissible in evidence.
Owen S Samuel and Vernon J. Veron, both of Emporia, for the appellant.
Roland Boynton, attorney-general, R. O. Mason, assistant attorney-general, and Joe Rolston, Jr., county attorney, for the appellee.
Defendant was convicted of unlawfully having intoxicating liquor in his possession, and found not guilty of maintaining a common nuisance. He appeals and contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish the fact of possession.
A warrant was placed in the hands of the undersheriff of Coffey county to search "the Elliott place" near Waverly. The undersheriff was accompanied by a deputy and the county attorney. They first went to a restaurant in Waverly occupied by Elliott. From there they went to the "Elliott place," and the defendant accompanied them. On the way out the defendant said: "When you get out there, don't scare the women, because they have nothing to do with this business." On reaching the premises they found Mrs. Davis and other women. It was testified that Mrs. Davis said, in the presence of the defendant, "They had to make a living some way," and the defendant made no response.
The premises were searched and the officers found nine cases of beer, thirty-five or forty gallons of beer in the making, two pieces of hose, one hundred empty bottles, bottle capper, an oil stove and other paraphernalia upstairs in a room which was locked with a padlock. The downstairs was searched and they found a bottle containing a small amount of whisky in one corner of the kitchen; also some empty bottles and a few bottles of beer in a commode or washstand in the kitchen.
A witness testified:
Another witness testified that he heard the defendant tell his wife: "Our rent won't be so damned cheap, after all."
The sheriff testified that he was acquainted with the defendant, and knew the place the defendant occupied; that the defendant said he lived at the place where the search was made, called it home and his folks were there.
O. T Elliott testified on behalf of the defendant; assumed full responsibility for the existing condition and claimed that he was the owner of the beer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Territory Hawai`i v. Corum
...in presence of the defendant in which the witness was seeking to obtain information that might enable the accused to escape; State v. Davis, supra; Commonwealth v. Galavan, 9 Allen (Mass.) 271, 273, statements by a wife in the presence of her husband; Commonwealth v. Sliney, supra, conversa......
-
Territory of Hawaii v. Corum
... ... accusation is made ... By the ... Federal as well as many state courts it is held that the fact ... of arrest on a criminal charge alone is sufficient to render ... inadmissible as evidence the failure of an ... Vaughan v. State, 127 P. 264; ... People v. Koerner, 154 N.Y. 355; ... People v. Hartwell, 37 Cal.App ... 799; Davis v. State, 37 So. 1018; ... People v. Page, 162 N.Y. 272; ... McNutt v. State, 163 Ark. 444; ... Commonwealth v. Kenney, 46 ... ...
-
State v. Stephens
...liquor, under either of which circumstances he would have violated the statute. State v. Wagoner, 123 Kan. 591, 256 P. 957; State v. Davis, 133 Kan. 571, 300 P. 1114. judgment is affirmed. ...
-
State v. Mallett
...the statement by Wilson. (State v. Cruse, 112 Kan. 486, syl. 6, 212 P. 81; State v. Cottrell, 120 Kan. 312, 313, 243 P. 296; State v. Davis, 133 Kan. 571, syl. 2, 300 P. 1114.) And finally, the mere fact that defendant and Wilson had retained counsel did not preclude the authorities from in......