State v. Krout
| Decision Date | 10 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 44417,No. 2,44417,2 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christina KROUT, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Morris A. Shenker, William R. O'Toole, St. Louis, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Hugh P. Williamson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
BOHLING, Commissioner.
Christina Krout appeals from a judgment imposing a fine of $750 and imprisonment in the city jail for a term of three months for selling intoxicating liquor without having a license to do so, a felony. Section 311.550(7). (Statutory references are to RSMo 1949 and V.A.M.S.) Appellant contends error was committed in the introduction of a certain exhibit in evidence and in the several forms of verdict submitted to the jury.
William Mack Brown, an agent of the Missouri State Department of Liquor Control, Detective Corporal Philip Dwyer and two or three police officers of the city of St. Louis went to within about a half block of 5118 Kensington avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, on the morning of July 11, 1953, about 2:15 a. m. Agent Brown proceeded to 5118 Kensington and rang the doorbell. Appellant answered the door and he asked her if she had anything to drink. She admitted him and they walked back to the kitchen where several persons, men and women, were drinking beer. Brown told appellant he wanted some whiskey. She went to a pantry and brought out a bottle of whiskey with a 'Westridge' label on it. He then asked appellant if she wanted a drink and she said yes. Appellant poured the drinks from the bottle into two threequarter ounce 'shot' glasses. Appellant told him he owed a dollar. He gave her a dollar and she put it in her pocket. Appellant put the drinks on a table and returned the bottle to the pantry. About this time the doorbell rang and appellant went to answer it. She left her drink on the table, without drinking any of it. Brown drank his liquor. He went to the front of the house. Corporal Dwyer was there and talked to Brown. Dwyer placed appellant under arrest. The other officers came in. Agent Brown was back in the kitchen within three minutes. The shot glasses were in the same places on the table they had been when he went to the front of the house. Corporal Dwyer picked up a Coca-Cola bottle from the floor and poured the liquid out of the shot glass appellant had left on the table into the Coca-Cola bottle. Asked 'how must whiskey was in that shot glass,' he answered: 'It was full.' He stated the Coca-Cola bottle might have had some drops of liquid in it. He asked appellant to take the money out of her pocket and place it on the table. She did this. Earlier in the evening Brown had written the serial numbers on a piece of paper of three one dollar bills he had in his pocket. Corporal Dwyer examined the money and the serial number of one of the dollar bills on the table corresponded with a number on the paper. He then questioned appellant about selling liquor to agent Brown, and appellant stated she had and that she had no license to sell intoxicating liquor of any kind. Corporal Dwyer and Officer Schriefer went to the pantry, and while the two were standing side by side Schriefer took the bottle of liquor off of a shelf in the pantry, and handed it to Dwyer. Brown testified he saw the officers get the bottle from where appellant put it. This was the bottle with the Westridge label on it. Corporal Dwyer and agent Brown placed their initials on the label. Officer Dwyer also marked the label of the Coca-Cola bottle with his initials. He took possession of both bottles, took them to the district office and tagged them, and kept them under his custody until he delivered them in person to Clemons R. Maise, the director of the police laboratory.
The bottle with the Westridge label was introduced in evidence as State's Exhibit 3 and the Coca-Cola bottle was introduced as State's Exhibit 4. Mr. Maise testified that Corporal Dwyer delivered the two exhibits to him in person on July 14, 1953; that Exhibit 4 had a crown cap on it, covered with a masking tape; and that his chemical analysis for the alcoholic content of the liquid in Exhibit 3 showed 52.6% by volume, or 44.9% by weight, and the liquid in Exhibit 4 showed 46% by volume, or 38.8% by weight, and that in each instance the liquid was intoxicating liquor.
Appellant contends error was committed in the introduction of Exhibit 4 because the chemical analysis of Mr. Maise established 'that there was a difference of 6.4% by volume between State's Exhibits 3 and 4, and a difference of 6.1% by weight between State's Exhibits 3 and 4.'
'Intoxicating liquor' is defined as alcohol for beverage purposes 'containing in excess of three and two-tenths per cent of alcohol by weight.' Sec. 311.020. It is unlawful for any person to sell such intoxicating liquor in this State in any quantity without taking out a license therefor. Sec. 311.050. The chemical analysis established that the alcoholic content of the liquid in Exhibit 3 was 44.9% and in Exhibit 4 was 38.8% by weight. In each instance the liquid was intoxicating liquor. The evidence warranted findings that Corporal Dwyer picked the Coca-Cola bottle off of the floor and when he poured the liquor from the shot glass in it, the bottle was not completely empty but had a few drops of liquid in it. He then placed a cap on the bottle and marked it with his initials, and had the exhibit, together with Exhibit 3, in his custody until he personally delivered them to Mr. Maise. Mr. Maise explained that the liquor from the shot glass would be diluted if Exhibit 4 had some liquid in it when Corporal Dwyer emptied the shot glass into it. In State v. Myers, 351 Mo. 332, 172 S.W.2d 946, 950,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Graham
...Mo.App., 228 S.W.2d 15, 18; State v. Stringer, 357 Mo. 978, 211 S.W.2d 925; Brown v. United States, 8 Cir., 143 F. 60.15 State v. Krout, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 529; State v. Pogue, Mo.App., 282 S.W.2d 582.16 A--State v. Dantonio, 1955, 18 N.J. 570, 115 A.2d 35, 49 A.L.R.2d 460; A--People v. Magri,......
-
Glaze v. Glaze
...performed their statutory duties. State v. Pogue, Mo.App., 282 S.W.2d 582, 585(2), and cases there collected. See also State v. Krout, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 529, 531; State ex rel. and to Use of City of St. Louis v. Priest, 348 Mo. 37, 152 S.W.2d 109, 112(5); State ex rel. Missouri State Life Ins......
-
State v. Stevens, 57692
...sameness of the condition of the clothing; reasonable assurance of identify and same condition within the rules laid down in State v. Krout, 282 S.W.2d 529 (Mo.1955); State v. Baines, 394 S.W.2d 312 (Mo.1965), cert. den. 384 U.S. 992, 86 S.Ct. 1900, 16 L.Ed.2d 1008, and State v. McCrary, 47......