State v. Davis

Citation18 S.W. 894,108 Mo. 666
PartiesSTATE v. DAVIS.
Decision Date02 March 1892
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from circuit court, Daviess county; C. H. S. GOODMAN, Judge.

Indictment against D. Harfield Davis, a druggist, for refusing to produce before the grand jury a certain prescription. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment the state appeals. Reversed.

John M. Wood, Atty. Gen., and G. A. Chapman, Pros. Atty., for the State. J. F. Harwood and W. D. Hamilton, for respondent.

MACFARLANE, J.

This case comes to this court on the appeal of the state from a judgment of the circuit court of Davies county sustaining a demurrer to the indictment. Defendant was indicted as a druggist and pharmacist, under section 4622, for refusing to produce before the grand jury of the county the prescriptions filled by him during the previous year, when lawfully summoned to do so. A demurrer to this indictment was sustained on the ground that said section, in requiring defendant to produce the prescriptions before the grand jury, was in conflict with section 23 of the bill of rights, under the constitution of this state, and the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States, in that it required him to furnish evidence against himself. Section 4621, Rev. St. 1889, prohibits druggists or proprietors of drug-stores, or pharmacists, from selling intoxicating liquors in less quantities than four gallons, except on a written prescription, dated and signed, first had and obtained from some regularly registered and practicing physician, and then only when such physician shall state in such prescription the name of the person for whom the same is prescribed, and that such intoxicating liquor is prescribed as a necessary remedy. Section 4622 is as follows: "Every druggist, proprietor of a drug-store, or pharmacist shall carefully preserve all prescriptions compounded by him or those in his employ, numbering, dating, and filing them in the order in which they are compounded, and shall produce the same in court, or before any grand jury, whenever thereto lawfully required, and, on failing, neglecting, or refusing so to do, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished by a fine not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars."

The terms of section 23 of article 2 of our state constitution, "that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case," has uniformly received from the courts a construction which would give to the citizen protection as broad as that afforded under the common-law principle from which they were derived. Lord CAMDEN, as early as 1762, in his celebrated opinion in case of Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. State Tr 1029, in speaking of the right of search and seizure of private books and papers, uses this language: "Papers are the owner's goods and chattels. They are his dearest property, and are so far from enduring a seizure that they will hardly bear an inspection; and, though the eye cannot, by the laws of England, be guilty of a trespass, yet, where private papers are removed and carried away, the secret nature of those goods will be an aggravation of the trespass, and demand more considerable damages in that respect. Where is the written law that gives any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • State v. Bixman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 Marzo 1901
    ......State v. Davis, 108 Mo. 670, 18 S. W. 894. Cases to the same effect abound in other jurisdictions. Board v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 667; Calder v. Kurby, 5 Gray, 597; State v. Holmes, 38 N. H. 225; Fell v. State, 42 Md. 71; Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, 24 L. Ed. 989. In this last-cited case the supreme ......
  • Shapiro v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 21 Junio 1948
    ...... . Page 11 . bill on December 9, 1941, the day after Congress declared the existence of a state of war between this country and the Imperial Government of Japan. Appearing before the Senate Committee in this wartime setting, the proponents of ...Justice Hughes, announcing the opinion of the Court, based the decision on the reasoning (which this Court recently cited with approval, in Davis v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 582, 589, 590, 66 S.Ct. 1256, 1259, 90 L.Ed. 1453), that .           'the physical custody of ......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 28 Febrero 1916
    ......State, 2 Ga. App. 29, 58 S. E. 390; Stewart v. State, 2 Ga. App. 98, 58 S. E. 395; Gainer v. State, 2 Ga. App. 126, 58 S. E. 295; Sherman v. State, 2 Ga. App. 148, 58 S. E. 393; Sherman v. State, 2 Ga. App. 686, 58 S. E. 1122; Smith v. State, 3 Ga. App. 326, 59 S. E. 934; Davis v. State, 4 Ga. App. 318, 61 S. E. 404; Glover v. State, 4 Ga. App. 455, 61 S. E. 862; Jackson v. State, 7 Ga. App. 414, 66 S. E. 982; Wright v. State, 9 Ga. App. 266, 70 S. E. 1126; Underwood v. State, 13 Ga. App. 206, 78 S. E. 1103, and others, and as a constitutional question was ......
  • United States v. Field, 300-302
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 30 Octubre 1951
    ...... a federal officer executing the process of a United States court, or even merely guarding the person of a federal justice, is immune from state prosecution for a homicide committed in performance of these duties. See In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 658, 34 L.Ed. 55, and cases cited; Ex ...See also United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 125, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L.R. 1430; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 66 S.Ct. 1256, 90 L.Ed. 1453. .         Dean Wigmore states that this privilege, like others, should be ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT