State v. Neidermark

• Decision Date: 01 August 1922
• Citation: 35 Idaho 703,208 P. 232
• Parties: STATE, Respondent, v. HENRY NEIDERMARK, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

208 P. 232

35 Idaho 703

STATE, Respondent, v. HENRY NEIDERMARK, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

August 1, 1922

POSSESSION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR-EVIDENCE-CONFLICT-SUFFICIENCY.

Where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, and there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict, such verdict will not be disturbed.

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District, for Shoshone County. Hon. Wm. W. Woods, Judge.

Prosecution for the crime of possessing intoxicating liquor to be used for beverage purposes. Judgment of conviction. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Walter H. Hanson and Therrett Towles, for Appellant.

Where the evidence leaves the defendant's guilt in doubt, a new trial should be granted, as contrary to the evidence. (Reynolds v. State, 24 Ga. 427; Rafferty v. People, 72 Ill. 37; Stout v. State, 78 Ind. 492; State v. Hilton, 22 Iowa 241; Crandall v. State, 28 Ohio St. 479; State v. Kane, 1 McCord L. (S. C.) 482; Owens v. State, 35 Tex. 361; Brite v. State, 10 Tex. App. 368; Ellis v. State, 10 Tex. App. 540; Saltillo v. State, 16 Tex. App. 249; Dean v. Commonwealth, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 912.)

In a civil case, an appellate court will not disturb the verdict if there is any evidence to support it. In a criminal case, however, a new trial will be granted when the evidence preponderates against the verdict. (Territory v. Reuss, 5 Mont. 605, 5 P. 885; Leake v. State, 29 Tenn. (10 Humph.) 144; State v. Curtis, 30 Idaho 537, 165 P. 999.)

Roy L. Black, Attorney General, and James L. Boone, Assistant, for Respondent.

The rule is well settled that where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence and there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict, such verdict will not be disturbed. (State v. Silva, 21 Idaho 247, 120 P. 835; State v. Downing, 23 Idaho 540, 130 P. 461; State v. Mox Mox, 28 Idaho 176, 152 P. 802; State v. White, 33 Idaho 697, 197 P. 824; State v. Colvard, 33 Idaho 702, 197 P. 826.)

DUNN, J. Rice, C. J., and Budge, McCarthy and Lee, JJ., concur.

OPINION

DUNN, J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for sale for beverage purposes. He moved for a new trial, which the court denied, and he has appealed from the judgment and also from the order denying a new trial.

All of the errors assigned by appellant are grouped and discussed under the general proposition that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, but a careful reading of the record shows this contention to be without merit. While there is a conflict, there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict. This brings the case within the rule that "where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, and there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict, such verdict will not be disturbed." (State v. White, 33 Idaho 697, 197 P. 824; State v. Colvard, 33 Idaho 702, 197 P. 826; State v. Mox Mox, 28 Idaho 176, 152 P. 802; State v. Downing, 23 Idaho 540, 130 P. 461; State v. Silva, 21 Idaho 247, 120 P. 835.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Rice, C. J., and Budge, McCarthy and Lee, JJ., concur.