State v. Norris

• Decision Date: 18 February 1928
• Docket Number: 28631
• Citation: 2 S.W.2d 755
• Parties: STATE v. NORRIS
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

2 S.W.2d 755

STATE v. NORRIS

No. 28631

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

February 18, 1928

North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and David P. Janes, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

OPINION

HIGBEE, C.

From a conviction by a jury in Stone county upon a charge of feloniously selling hootch, moonshine, corn whisky, and the assessment of his punishment at a fine of $ 500, the defendant, George Norris, has appealed. The information is conventional, and has met our frequent approval.

We are not favored with a brief by the appellant, but we have read the record, from which we find that on August 1, 1926, the appellant and three companions were riding in appellant's automobile near the town of Cave Springs in Stone county where they were met by the witnesses Daugherty and Stevens. Daugherty asked Loyd Howard, one of the men in the automobile, if he knew where whisky could be found. Howard advised him that Norris would sell him some at $ 2 a quart. Daugherty produced and paid to Norris the necessary $ 2. The back seat of the automobile was raised, and Daugherty reached in and drew out from under the seat a quart fruit jar filled with corn whisky. Later in the day Daugherty and Howard became intoxicated from drinking this liquor and were arrested.

Howard testified for the state and corroborated Daugherty. Appellant and the others present contradicted him and swore no sale of liquor occurred.

The good reputation of appellant and the bad reputation of Daugherty were proven, and Daugherty and Howard were both shown to have made statements out of court contradictory to their testimony.

By his motion for new trial, appellant sought to present ten grounds of error, most of which are stated too generally to warrant our attention. There are four grounds which we will consider:

(1) The action of the sheriff in summoning as jurors others than those on the regular panel is presented by the motion. This charge is not proved by the record. We have held that such conduct, when shown to have occurred, is not reversible error. State v. Murphy, 292 Mo. 275, 237 S.W. 529; State v. Boone (Mo. Sup.) 289 S.W. 575.

(2) The action of the trial court in permitting the state to prove by the sheriff contradictory statements made out of court by one of the witnesses testifying for the defense is urged as error. The testimony was proper; the foundation had been laid in the cross-examination of the witness thus impeached. Aside from this, no objection was made until after the...