State v. Denner
| Decision Date | 17 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | 23,967 |
| Citation | 198 N.W. 430,159 Minn. 189 |
| Parties | STATE v. JAYMA DENNER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Defendant, whose true name was Jayma Mija, was arrested charged with a violation of the city ordinance forbidding the manufacture of intoxicating liquor within the city, tried in the municipal court of Minneapolis before Charles L. Smith J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action, found her guilty of the charge and sentenced her to the workhouse. From the order denying her motion for a new trial and from the judgment of conviction, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Ordinance forbidding making of intoxicating liquor not repealed by 1923 statute.
1. An ordinance of the city of Minneapolis, prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquor within the city, is not superseded or rendered inoperative by chapter 416, Laws of 1923.
City attorney of Minneapolis authorized to prosecute violations of city ordinance.
2. Under chapter 141, Laws 1874, the city attorney of the city of Minneapolis has authority to prosecute criminal offenses committed in violation of an ordinance prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquor within the city.
Testimony of officers, without search warrant, admissible.
3. It was not error to receive testimony of officers as to what they found in the attic of the building in which the accused resided, without having a warrant to search the premises.
Conviction sustained.
4. In a prosecution for unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, evidence held sufficient to support a conviction.
Ordinance violated when manufacture has begun.
5. To constitute a violation of an ordinance prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, it is not necessary that the process of manufacturing be completed. One actually engaged in an effort to produce the finished product falls within the prohibition.
Bessesen & Bessesen, for appellant.
Neil M. Cronin, City Attorney, and L. W. Youngdahl, Assistant City Attorney, for respondent.
Defendant was prosecuted by the city attorney of the city of Minneapolis, in the municipal court of that city, for the violation of an ordinance forbidding the manufacture of intoxicating liquor within the city. She was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in the workhouse. From an order denying her motion for a new trial, this appeal was taken.
On September 1 defendant rented the second and the attic floors in a dwelling at 1129 Dupont avenue, North Minneapolis, for living rooms. There was a flight of stairs leading directly to the second floor, then on up to the attic. Defendant occupied the rooms on the second floor alone, for living purposes. On September 10 she rented the attic rooms to a strange man whom she has not since seen and of whose whereabouts, according to her testimony, she has no knowledge. She is an Italian, and married, but her husband had not lived with her for several weeks. The owner of the premises complained to the authorities that matters were not as they should be.
On the evening of September 15 two police officers visited the premises without any search warrant. They first went to the rooms occupied by the defendant and made a search, but found nothing. Then they went to the attic. The door leading into the rooms was locked with an outside padlock. There was a bad odor and they broke the door in. They found eight large barrels of mash standing on the floor. A gas plate was burning and the windows were closed. There was but one gas meter in connection with the second floor and the attic and there were no water connections between these two floors. It was necessary to obtain water from the second floor for the attic. There was a hose connected from the bathroom on the second floor up through the ceiling to the attic rooms. At the time of the arrest the mash in the barrels was bubbling up. At the same time defendant told the officers that she had nothing to do with the attic; that she had rented it and knew nothing about what was in it. She had never informed the owner of the premises of having sublet the rooms in the attic.
At the time of the arrest the officers took a sample of the mash from two of the barrels. These samples were analyzed by a chemist. He testified that one sample had over 6 per cent of ethyl alcohol by volume; that the other contained over 9 per cent; that, in his opinion, the mash was potable as a beverage; and that the two samples must have been in process of manufacture a week or ten days to have reached the stage they were in when he received them.
Appellant's 11 assignments of error may be grouped and considered under three general headings as follows:...
To continue reading
Request your trial