State v. James Romano
| Decision Date | 08 February 1928 |
| Citation | 140 A. 492,101 Vt. 53 |
| Parties | STATE v. JAMES ROMANO |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
January Term, 1928.
Indictment and Information---Sufficiency of Venue---Intoxicating Liquors---Allegation of Quantity Sold or Furnished---Act 1921, No. 204---Sufficiency of Information as to Charging Offense with Certainty and Particularity.
1. Information in two counts alleging respectively unauthorized sale and furnishing of intoxicating liquor to have been made "at Windsor in the county of Windsor," held sufficient allegation of place where offense was committed.
2. In prosecution under Acts of 1921, No. 204, which prohibits sale or furnishing of intoxicating liquor regardless of quantity quantity sold or furnished need not be alleged nor necessarily proved.
3. Information in two counts alleging respectively unauthorized sale and furnishing of intoxicating liquor, held to charge offense under Acts 1921, No. 204, 4, with sufficient certainty and particularity, since under such statute every sale or furnishing of intoxicating liquor constitutes an offense regardless by whom made or under what circumstances unless within one of exceptions mentioned in statute, which are of such nature as need not be negatived in information.
INFORMATION in two counts changing respectively unauthorized sale and furnishing of intoxicating liquor. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury at the June Term, 1927, Windsor County Sherburne, J., presiding. Verdict of guilty, judgment on verdict, and sentence. After verdict and before judgment respondent moved in arrest of judgment for that the information was uncertain, insufficient, and indefinite, and did not legally inform him of nature of charge against him, which motion was overruled, and the respondent excepted.
Judgment that there is no error in the proceedings and respondent takes nothing by his exceptions. Let execution be done.
Charles E. Novak and Lawrence, Stafford & Bloomer for the respondent.
Robert R. Twitchell, State's attorney, for the State.
Present: WATSON, C. J., POWERS, SLACK, MOULTON, and CHASE, JJ.
The respondent stands convicted of a violation of our statute which prohibits the sale or distribution of intoxicating liquor. The information contains two counts. The first charges that the respondent at a time and place specified "did sell intoxicating liquor to one John C. Winters without authority of law so to do contrary to the form, force and effect of the statute," etc. The second count is like the first except it charges a furnishing instead of a sale. After verdict and before judgment the respondent moved in arrest of judgment for that the information was uncertain, insufficient, and indefinite, and did not legally inform him of the nature of the charge against him. The motion was overruled to which respondent excepted.
The case was submitted on briefs, so we have no knowledge respecting the claimed shortage in the information, now relied upon, beyond what therein appears, which is, in substance, that the place where the alleged offense was committed is not definitely stated, that the quantity of liquor alleged to have been sold or furnished is not stated, and that "there is no allegation which acquaints the respondent with the charge he has to meet."
The first two grounds relied upon require little attention. The offense is alleged to have been committed "at Windsor in the county of Windsor." That this constitutes a sufficient allegation of place is too well established to require a citation of authorities; but see State v. Paige, 78 Vt. 286, 62 A. 1017, 6 Ann. Cas. 725, and State v. Suiter, 78 Vt. 391, 63 A. 182.
Under the present law which prohibits the sale or furnishing of intoxicating liquor regardless of quantity, the quantity need not be alleged nor necessarily proved.
As we understand respondent's brief, State v Villa, 92 Vt. 121...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edward Van Ness
...113 A. 283, the complaint was in the same words, and the judgment was arrested upon the authority of the Villa decision. In State v. Romano, 101 Vt. 53, 140 A. 492, the question arose under sec. 4, No. 204, Acts of 1921, provided that "A person shall not manufacture, sell, barter, transport......
-
Fraser v. Sleeper
...McCaffrey in holding that defendant had burden to show vehicle had been inspected in absence of inspection sticker); State v. Romano, 101 Vt. 53, 56, 140 A. 492, 493 (1928) (citing McCaffrey in holding exception to prohibition on liquor sales for licensed sellers was a defense, not an eleme......
-
State v. J. R. Wersebe
... ... stating that fact. In the case before us this omission is ... supplied. See also State v. Romano, 101 Vt ... 53, 140 A. 492, a case under our former prohibitory law, ... where an information simply charging that the respondent did ... sell ... ...
-
State v. Joel W. Pierce
... ... Bennington" was a sufficient description of the place ... where the offense was claimed to have been committed ... State v. Romano, 101 Vt. 53, 55, 140 A ... 492, and cases cited. The respondent argues that the ... description of the electrical line as being the one which ... ...