State v. Lashus

• Decision Date: 27 October 1887
• Citation: 11 A. 180,79 Me. 504
• Parties: STATE v. LASHUS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

11 A. 180

79 Me. 504

STATE

v. LASHUS.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

October 27, 1887.

On exceptions by respondent from superior court, Kennebec county.

Indictment for common seller of intoxicating liquors. At the trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the respondent filed the following bill of exceptions:

"At the trial of this case, had at the present term of court, evidence was introduced tending to show that the defendant had sold intoxicating liquors during the time named in the indictment. The county attorney, against the seasonable objection of the defendant's counsel, was allowed by the presiding judge to introduce the following record, to-wit:

"'RECORD.

"'State of Maine, Kennebec—ss.: At the supreme judicial court, begun and holden at Augusta, within and for the county of Kennebec, on the first Tuesday of August, being the first day of said month, Anno Domini, 1871. By the Honorable CHARLES DANFORTH, a justice of said court.

"'State vs. Levi Lashus.

"'Indictment for being a common seller of intoxicating liquors, found at the March term, 1871, when and where the defendant being arraigned pleads not guilty, thereupon the issue being presented to a jury duly impaneled, they find a verdict of guilty, thence the action was continued to this term for sentence. Sentence first day of this term, fine $100, and costs. Monday, August 7, 1871, committed for non-payment.'

"This record was all the evidence introduced at the trial tending to sustain the allegation in the indictment of a former conviction of the defendant. * * * The court instructed the jury that said record was introduced as bearing upon the amount of penalty or punishment following a conviction under the indictment, and that if the jury were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence introduced before them that the defendant had, during any portion of the time named in the indictment, been engaged in selling intoxicating liquors as a business, they should return a verdict of guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. To the ruling of the court admitting said record, and the instruction in the charge to the jury as to the basis of a verdict of guilty, the defendant excepts."

L. T. Carleton, Co. Atty., for the State. S. S. Brown, for respondent.

DANFORTH, J. The record of the prior conviction alleged in the indictment was properly admitted. None more extended had been or is usually made. The addition of the indictment would have given no more...