State v. Dawn
| Decision Date | 25 February 1926 |
| Citation | 245 P. 74,42 Idaho 210 |
| Parties | STATE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM DAWN and KELSEY MARQUESS, Appellants |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW-CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE-DEGREE OF PROOF NECESSARY FOR CONVICTION-UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF LIQUOR.
1. Any material fact in criminal prosecution may, as a rule, be established by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence and circumstantial evidence alone will support a conviction if it produces belief of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in minds of jury.
2. Although to sustain conviction on circumstantial evidence circumstances must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, the evidence need not demonstrate guilt beyond possibility of innocence, and, if circumstances proved produce moral conviction to exclusion of every reasonable doubt, it need not be absolutely incompatible with innocence of accused.
3. Circumstantial evidence held sufficiently inconsistent with innocence to sustain conviction for unlawful possession of liquor.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Washington County. Hon. B. S. Varian, Judge.
Conviction of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Judgment sustained.
Judgment sustained.
George Donart, for Appellants.
Where a conviction is sought on circumstantial evidence alone the circumstances proven must be inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than the defendant's guilt. (Tomlinson v. State (Okla. Cr.), 228 P. 608; Hamilton v. State (Okla. Cr.), 219 P. 951; State v. Schrak, 60 Mont. 70, 198 P. 137; State v Hurst, 36 Idaho 156, 209 P. 724; State v Nesbit, 4 Idaho 548, 43 P. 66; State v. Marcoe, 33 Idaho 284, 193 P. 80.)
A conviction cannot be founded on conjecture however shrewd, or upon probabilities however strong. (State v. Lewis, 70 Mont. 61, 223 P. 915.)
A. H. Conner, Attorney General, and John W. Cramer, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
"Whether a criminal intent is a necessary element of a statutory offense is a matter of construction to be determined from the language of the statute in view of its manifest purpose and design, and where such intent is not made an ingredient of the offense, the intention with which the act is done, or the lack of any criminal intent in the premises, is immaterial." (State v. Sterrett, 35 Idaho 580, 207 P. 1071.)
The rule is that in acts mala in se the intent governs, and in acts mala prohibita the intent does not govern; and the only inquiry is: Has the law been violated? (State v. Sheehan, 33 Idaho 103, 190 P. 71; State v. Sterrett, supra.)
Appellants, William Dawn and Kelsey Marquess, were convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.
On the morning of July 4th one Minnie McIntyre was mowing the lawn in front of her premises in Weiser, and upon going to the curbing to empty the clippings of grass found there a large jug and two small bottles. Thereupon she called her neighbor, Mrs. Gish, and these two made some examination of the contents of the bottles disclosing the apparent presence of intoxicating liquor, after which the sheriff's office was notified. The sheriff then came to the Gish place and placed a deputy to watch the jug and bottles and in a short time a car drove past the house and evidently went around the block and upon returning stopped near the bottles, one man getting out and raising the hood of the car while the other occupant got the bottles and put them in the car, after which the sheriff arrested the occupants of the car, and took possession of the bottles.
There is but one specification of error, that being on the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict for the reason that there is no showing that the defendants ever had intoxicating liquor in their possession and that the defendants without any knowledge of the contents of the bottles were making an examination of their contents, without attempt to take them into their possession.
W. V. Leonard, state chemist of Idaho, testified that he took samples from the bottles exhibited and found them to contain 45.88 per cent of alcohol by volume.
There was evidence that one of the defendants had placed the jug and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McClurg, 5622
... ... other than that of guilt need not be excluded, but only every ... other reasonable hypothesis, etc. This is the gist ... of the court's statement in Instruction No. XXI. ( ... State v. Marcoe , 33 Idaho 284, 193 P. 80; State ... v. McLennan, supra ; State v. Dawn , 42 ... Idaho 210, 245 P. 74; State v. Peters , 43 Idaho 564, ... 253 P. 842. See, also, Bowen v ... [300 P. 913] ... State , 140 Ala. 65, 37 So. 233; State v ... Glass , 5 Ore. 73; Carlton v. People , 150 Ill ... 181, 41 Am. St. 346, 37 N.E. 244; State v. Yancey , ... 47 Idaho ... ...
-
State v. Ponthier, 10183
...occasions sustained convictions on the basis of such evidence. State v. McLennan, 40 Idaho 286, 231 P. 718 (1925); State v. Dawn, 42 Idaho 210, 245 P. 74 (1926); State v. Yancey, 47 Idaho 1, 272 P. 495 (1928); State v. Farris, 48 Idaho 439, 282 P. 489 (1929). As we stated in State v. McLenn......
-
State v. Wilson
...1, 4, 272 P. 495; State v. Sorensen, 37 Idaho 517, 526, 216 P. 727; State v. McLennan, 40 Idaho 286, 302, 231 P. 718; State v. Dawn, 42 Idaho 210, 213, 245 P. 74; State v. Hix, 58 Idaho 730, 741, 78 P.2d State v. Burke, supra, is, in many respects, parallel with the case at bar and supports......
-
State v. Hix
... ... exclusion of every reasonable doubt, they need not be ... absolutely incompatible, on any reasonable hypothesis, with ... the innocence of the accused. ( State v. Marcoe, 33 ... Idaho 284, 193 P. 80; State v. McLennan, 40 Idaho ... 286, 231 P. 718; State v. Dawn, 42 Idaho 210, 245 P ... 74; State v. Yancey, 47 Idaho 1, 272 P. 495.) ... It is ... not error to refuse to instruct the jury that the defendant ... might be guilty of lesser offenses included in that charged ... when there is no evidence that would tend to reduce the ... offense ... ...