State v. Eggleston
| Citation | 206 N.W. 281,201 Iowa 1 |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 37076 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. LOUIS EGGLESTON, Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Appeal from Howard District Court.--JAMES D. COONEY, Judge.
THE defendant was convicted of "bootlegging" and appeals.
Affirmed.
R. J Sullivan, for appellant.
Ben J Gibson, Attorney-general, S. S. Faville, Assistant Attorney-general, and W. L. Barker, County Attorney, for appellee.
VERMILION J. STEVENS, DE GRAFF, and ALBERT, JJ., concur.
I.
Appellant complains that the trial court asked questions of witnesses produced by the State.
A witness had testified that he purchased liquor of the defendant; that he drank it, and in about fifteen minutes was dizzy and numb, and couldn't handle his hands and feet, and was sick. After some further testimony which does not appear in the record, the court said:
The answer was, "Yes." The court then asked: "How did it appear,--can you describe its appearance in color?" The answer permitted to stand was: "It was brown." The court asked: "Did you taste the liquor before you drank it?" and the witness answered that he did. The court then asked the witness to describe the smell and taste of the liquor. No answer to these questions was made. The court thereupon remarked: "Well, if you don't want to answer that, we will pass it." The defendant objected to the action of the court in asking these questions.
It is not entirely clear from the record whether the questions of the court were prompted by hesitation on the part of the witness, or were for the purpose of enabling the court to rule advisedly on a motion to strike the answer of the witness as to the effect of what he drank. But, in either event, there was no abuse of discretion and no error. State v. Spiers, 103 Iowa 711, 73 N.W. 343; State v. Marshall, 105 Iowa 38, 74 N.W. 763; Bartlett v. Falk, 110 Iowa 346, 81 N.W. 602: Rounds v. Alee, 116 Iowa 345, 89 N.W. 1098.
Some questions were propounded by the court to other witnesses for the State. They merely tended to secure pertinent answers to questions asked by the attorney for the State; as where the question was as to what certain liquor smelled or tasted like, or what effect it had, and the court directed the witness to describe the smell or taste, if he could, or to describe the effect, if any. In one instance a witness had said that the liquor smelled like alcohol, and the court asked if he was familiar with the smell of alcohol. No objections were interposed to these questions on the ground that they were asked by the court. State v. Spiers, supra. But, aside from that, there was no error. Rounds v. Alee, supra.
II. It is complained that witnesses were allowed to testify that the liquor they bought of defendant smelled or tasted like alcohol. The testimony was competent. State v. Miller, 53 Iowa 84, 4 N.W. 838; State v. Ling, 198 Iowa 598, 199 N.W. 285; Stankiewoecz v. State, 194 Ind. 246 (142 N.E. 615); 33 Corpus Juris 771.
III. The judgment provided that the defendant should be imprisoned in the county jail of Howard County at hard labor for the period of one year, and pay the costs of the prosecution. It is urged that the sentence is excessive. Section 1927, Code of 1924, in force at the time the offense was committed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial