State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 28 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | 26633 |
| Citation | 285 S.W. 90 |
| Parties | STATE v. MILLER et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
W. C Irwin, of Jefferson City, for appellants.
North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and A. B. Lovan, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
A jury, in the circuit court of Morgan county, December 9 1924, found the defendants guilty of feloniously selling a quart of moonshine to one Floyd Snodgrass. The verdict fixed their punishment at two years' imprisonment in the state penitentiary.
Floyd Snodgrass, a boy 16 years of age, testified that he and four other boys, August 6, 1924, were in Clarksburg, in Moniteau county, about 6 o'clock in the afternoon, when he saw the defendants Miller and Bledsoe in Clay's restaurant. He asked Bledsoe if he had any whisky, and Bledsoe answered, 'Yes.' Bledsoe and Miller came out of the restaurant, and Floyd asked Miller the same question. Miller replied, 'Come on down to the corner.' Witness then went to the four other boys who waited for him in a buggy, and collected from them $ 3.50; he contributed 50 cents of his own money. Then he, Bledsoe, and Miller went to the rear of Robinson's store, where Bledsoe reached under the back seat of his automobile, brought out two pint bottles of whisky, and delivered them to the witness. He put the money down on the back seat. He thought Miller got the money. Bledsoe told him how much it would be. Snodgrass and the other boys drank the whisky, and all became drunk. The father and the uncle of Floyd Snodgrass testified that Floyd was drunk and sick. The other boys testified to contributing the money, told how Snodgrass took it, and returned with the whisky which they all drank and on which they all became drunk. On this evidence the defendant was found guilty as stated, and appealed.
I. Error is assigned to the admission of a statement made by J. B. Snodgrass, uncle of Floyd, in which he said that Floyd pulled out a bottle, and threw it on the ground, it broke, and the contents smelled like whisky. We see no reason why the witness could not identify the contents of the bottle by its smell.
II. The verdict is as follows:
'We, the jury, find the defendants guilty as charged in the information, and assess their punishment at two years in the penitentiary.
'Birtle Huff, Foreman.'
In the motion for new trial there is no objection to the verdict as a joint verdict jointly assessing the punishment of the defendants, but in the motion for new trial the defendant assigned error to the giving of instruction No. 9, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial