State v. Lock

• Decision Date: 12 December 1927
• Docket Number: 28314
• Citation: 300 S.W. 698
• Parties: STATE v. LOCK
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

300 S.W. 698

STATE v. LOCK

No. 28314

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

December 12, 1927

G. Purd Hays, of Ozark, for appellant.

North T. Gentry, Atty, Gen., and Smith B. Atwood, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS C.

The prosecuting attorney of Webster county on September 18, 1926 filed an amended verified information in the circuit court charging defendant with manufacturing moonshine corn whisky. The jury returned a verdict of guilty assessing the punishment at a fine of $ 500, defendant appealing from the judgment entered thereon.

The testimony upon the part of the state tends to show that defendant and one Chester Gates resided in the same community in Webster county. Some time in June, 1926, defendant approached Gates, suggesting that they confederate in the making of whisky. Several conferences were had, after which on the farm of Gates' mother, in a thicket about 250 yards from the road running through the farm, in Webster county, they made three runs of moonshine corn whisky. Each furnished different materials and utensils. Gates bought meal and sugar and defendant furnished chops. Defendant also furnished a five-gallon stone jug in which to sour the mash and a copper worm, which he brought from his home. The firewood was found on the place; the defendant, however, furnishing the charcoal. There was also used in the manufacture of the whisky a milk can, a bucket, and a bottle of soda water, the latter to wash the can. These latter articles, together with ashes, were found on the mother's place after the arrest of Gates. Gates testified that defendant instructed him in the manufacture of whisky. While other witnesses for the state testified, no one except Gates connected defendant with the manufacture of whisky. In addition, no whisky or utensils used in the manufacture of it were found in the possession of defendant. Defendant took the stand and testified that he did not manufacture whisky or having anything to do with manufacturing whisky as related by Gates.

I. The first assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court to direct the jury to acquit defendant. The record shows that, while other witnesses testified for the state, the testimony of Gates, an accomplice, was the only evidence tending to connect defendant with the manufacture of whisky. Defendant complains that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is insufficient to support a verdict of guilty. Even though we treat the record as void of other evidence nevertheless it is settled in this state that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice tending to show the guilt of the defendant is sufficient upon which to base a verdict of guilty. We have often said that an accomplice is a competent witness and that his credibility becomes a matter for the determination of the jury. State v. Wigger, 196 Mo. 90, 93 S.W. 390; State v. Shelton, 223 Mo. 118, 122 S.W. 732; State v. Glon (Mo. Sup.) 253 S.W. 364 With the credibility of Gates' testimony for the determination of the jury, the testimony given by him to the effect that he and defendant acted jointly in the manufacture of whisky on his mother's farm in Webster county, and that by means of an improvised still moonshine corn whisky was actually...