State v. Helpley
| Citation | 279 S.W. 701 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | 26520 |
| Parties | STATE v. HELPLEY et al |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
William G. Sawyers and McCaffrey & Cook, all of Maryville, for appellants.
Robert W. Otto, Atty. Gen., and James A. Potter, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
Under section 21 of the Laws of 1923, at page 242, defendants were convicted of the felony of transporting corn whisky, were sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years each, and have appealed.
Practically the only question urged upon appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence. On or about October 2, 1924, two police officers of the city of Maryville, in Nodaway county, had reason to suspect defendants of possessing and transporting intoxicating liquor. They drove around in an automobile looking for defendants. They met defendants driving in an automobile going westward, and commanded them to stop. Such command was not heeded. Defendants knew the officers as well as their official positions. The officers turned their automobile and pursued defendants as they drove rapidly through the streets of Maryville. Defendants drove over numerous streets, and turned several corners in their efforts to elude their pursuers. Finally one of the officers fired two shots into the air. The fleeing automobile belonged to defendant Gray, and was being driven by him at the time. He finally stopped his automobile, and the officers arrested both defendants.
As they were pursuing the defendants, the officers saw one of them make a movement or movements as if throwing something from the automobile. Also one of them appeared to be pouring out something. Defendant Helpley was seen to be stooping over in the front of the automobile.
When the officers reached the automobile of defendants, they found broken necks and other portions of five or six whisky bottles lying on the floor of the automobile or upon the running board. Just as the officers arrived, defendant Gray endeavored to kick some of the remaining particles of glass out of the automobile. The floor of the automobile was covered by a rubber mat. This mat was wet with the liquid which covered it and filled depressions in it and ran off onto running board. The liquid had a strong alcoholic odor. There was abundance of testimony that this liquid was corn whisky or hootch. One of the officers had been deputy sheriff for several years, and testified as to his acquaintance with corn whisky, and so characterized the liquid on the floor and the running board of the automobile. A druggist testified that he had sold a number of whisky bottles to defendant Helpley on the day of the arrest, but could not identify the remnants of bottles as part of those sold by them.
Defendant Gray testified that he had invited Helpley to ride with him and had no knowledge that Helpley had any liquor upon his person. He did not attempt to explain why he did not stop his automobile at the command of the officers and instead led them through the streets in a desperate effort to elude them. He said that Helpley took several bottles out of his pockets and from inside of his shirt while they were driving away from the officers and broke them up. He then told Helpley that he was going to stop the automobile. He denied hearing any shots fired by the officer. He said there was no liquor in the automobile, except the bottles thereof which Helpley had upon his person.
Defendant Helpley testified that he had several bottles of liquor in his pockets, and pulled them out and broke them, and that defendant Gray had nothing to do with those bottles.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial