State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 14 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 32397.,32397. |
| Citation | 55 S.W.2d 967 |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHNSON. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; John Schmook, Judge.
Mrs. A. C. Johnson was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
L. L. Collins, of Springfield, for appellant.
Stratton Shartel, Atty. Gen. (James K. Coolidge, of Jefferson City, of counsel), for the State.
The prosecuting attorney of Greene county, Mo., filed an information charging defendant with operating a motor vehicle while appellant was in an intoxicated condition. A trial resulted in a conviction, and the jury, by their verdict, assessed defendant's punishment at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months and a fine of $50. Appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled and following this she was sentenced. An appeal was taken to this court.
The state introduced evidence to the effect that defendant, while driving a Ford roadster on a public street of the city of Springfield, Mo., failed to heed a stop signal and drove across the intersection and parked her car next to the curb. A witness for the state testified that the manner in which defendant was driving caused him to notify the police department. Two officers went to where defendant had parked her car and found her leaning over the steering wheel. One of the officers drove defendant's car to the police station. The police officers gave testimony with reference to the actions and conduct of the defendant from which the jury might well infer that defendant was intoxicated to such an extent that she was not able to safely drive a car.
The defendant testified, and in this she was corroborated by a witness, that she was not driving her car upon the occasion in question, but that another person was driving for her. One witness for the state testified that he saw the defendant driving the car and that no one was with her.
Appellant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to sustain a demurrer to the evidence. There was substantial evidence in the record in support of the charge. It was, therefore, the duty of the trial court to submit the case to the jury. The finding of the jury, under these circumstances, was conclusive on the question of guilt.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the information. The information charged that the defendant did feloniously drive and operate a motor vehicle while she, the said Mrs. A. C. Johnson, was in an intoxicated condition. That is substantially in the language of the statute and is sufficient. A similar information was approved in State v. Pike, 312 Mo. 27, 278 S. W. 725. See, also, State v. Reifsteck, 317 Mo. loc. cit. 270, 295 S. W. 741.
Appellant, in her motion for a new trial, contends that the section of the motor vehicle law, subdivision "g" of section 7783, R. S. Mo. 1929 (Mo. St. Ann. § 7783 (g), under which she was prosecuted, is unconstitutional and void, as it is in violation of sections 28 and 55, article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri. Passing the question of whether the defendant has properly presented and preserved the constitutional question for our review, this court has upheld the constitutionality of this law. In the case of State v. Pike, supra, this court held the section not violative of section 28, article 4. In the case of State v. Tippett, 317 Mo. 319, 296 S. W. loc. cit. 136 (13), (14), the contention was made that section 27, subdivision "f," now found in section 7783, supra, a penal statute, violated section 55 of article 4 of the Constitution, because the subject-matter was not embraced within the proclamation or the recommendation of the Governor calling the extra session of the Legislature at which session the act was passed. It was there in effect held that the special message of the Governor to the Legislature, with reference to the subject of regulating motor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chester
...Mo. 288, 294, 6 S.W.2d 866, 868(2); State v. Spurlock, Mo., 312 S.W.2d 843; State v. Campbell, supra, 292 S.W.2d at 298--299; State v. Johnson, Mo., 55 S.W.2d 967; State v. Reifsteck, 317 Mo. 268, 295 S.W. 741; State v. Fitzpatrick, Mo., 267 S.W. 905, 906(2)), and the testimony of all witne......
-
State v. Danforth
...facts, then, by noting the rule that where the evidence conflicts in a criminal case, the jury's findings are conclusive. State v. Johnson, 55 S.W.2d 967 (Mo.1932). We may neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. State v. Williams, 376 S.W.2d 133 (Mo.1964). The......
-
State v. Howard
...sec. 2485; C.J.S., sec. 1190, p. 732; State v. Henke, 313 Mo. 615, 285 S.W. 392; State v. Broaddus, 315 Mo. 1279, 289 S.W. 792; State v. Johnson, 55 S.W.2d 967. (3) The court gave a proper instruction on murder in the second degree. State v. Peters, 123 S.W.2d 34; State v. Bauerle, 145 Mo. ......
-
State v. Wiles
...A valid statute must give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what is prohibited. Id. In State v. Johnson, 55 S.W.2d 967 (Mo. 1932), the Missouri Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the term "operate" as used in the "driving while intoxicated" statu......