State v. Kenney
| Decision Date | 08 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12301. |
| Citation | 83 Wash. 441,145 P. 450 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. KENNEY. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; Jos. Sessions Judge.
George Kenney was convicted of giving liquor to an Indian, and appeals. Affirmed.
E. A Hesseltine, of Wilbur, and H. N. Martin, of Davenport, for appellant.
Jas. S Freece, Pros. Atty., and C. A. Pettijohn, both of Davenport for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the court below upon a charge of giving liquor to an Indian of mixed blood and within the protection of chapter 140, Session Laws 1909.
It is first contended that the court erred in holding that the person to whom the liquor was given was an Indian. The father was a white man, a veteran of the Civil War. The mother was an Indian woman. The statute makes no exceptions in favor of citizen Indians or the offspring of those who are citizens. If there be the blood of an Indian to the degree of more than one-eighth in the person to whom liquor is given or sold, they are within the statute. State v. Nicolls, 61 Wash. 142, 112 P. 269, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1088; State v. Mamlock, 58 Wash. 631, 109 P. 47, 137 Am. St. Rep. 1085.
The case of United States v. Haldley (C. C.) 99 F. 437 is relied on. That case is seemingly in point, and we would be inclined to follow its reasoning if it could be applied under our statute. The defendant in that case was charged under a federal statute (Act March 3, 1885, c. 341, § 9, 23 Stat. 385 [U. S. Comp. St. 1913, § 10,502]) providing for the punishment of 'all Indians committing upon the person or property of another Indian or other person, any of the following crimes, namely, murder,' etc. It was for the court to decide whether the person charged was an Indian. It was held that a half-breed child of a citizen parent was a citizen under the fourteenth amendment, and entitled to the rights and privileges and immunities of a citizen. Our statute says more than that liquor shall not be sold to an Indian; it bars the sale or gift to 'a mixed-blood Indian being more than one-eighth.' Our statute, as was said in the cases cited, is referable to the police power under which the state may define a class to which intoxicating liquors shall not be given or sold. A citizen cannot claim a constitutional right to get drunk. Neither can he claim a constitutional right to give or sell intoxicating liquor to one of a class that is protected by the law because of its weakness and a disposition to be improvident when accustomed to use liquor even in moderate quantities. If it were so, laws prohibiting the sale of liquors to habitual drunkards, minors, and others to whom its use may result in harm to society could not be sustained. The right of the state to enact the statute complained of does not rest upon any question of citizenship. The fourteenth amendment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois
...Vermont. State v. O'Brien, 106 Vt. 97, 170 A. 98. Virginia. Jett v. Commonwealth, 18 Grat. 933, 59 Va. 933. Washington. State v. Kenney, 83 Wash. 441, 145 P. 450. West Virginia. State v. Holesapple, 92 W.Va. 645, 115 S.E. 794. See Moundsville v. Fountain, 27 W.Va. 182, 197—198. Wyoming. See......
-
State v. Ivie
...punishments at the hands of separate sovereigns so long as each sovereign punishes the defendant but once. See State v. Kenney, 83 Wash. 441, 145 P. 450 (1915) (citing State v. Coss, 12 Wash. 673, 42 P. 127 (1895)); Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 136-38, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (195......
-
U.S. v. Angleton
...of Washington, clearly allowed a reprosecution and conviction following an acquittal for the same offense. Id. (citing State v. Kenney, 83 Wash. 441, 145 P. 450 (1915)). As to the cases decided after Lanza, the majority cited one state case decided in 1943 and four federal cases decided in ......
-
State v. Rorvick
...like.' Citing State v. Mamlock, 58 Wash. 631, 109 P. 47; 17 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 345; Black, Intoxicating Liquors, 42. In State v. Kenney, 83 Wash. 441, 145 P. 450, 451, it was held even though the Indian to whom the defendant was charged to have sold intoxicating liquor was a citizen of th......