State v. Pappas, 27056.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1938
• Docket Number: 27056.
• Citation: 195 Wash. 197,80 P.2d 770
• Parties: STATE v. PAPPAS et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

80 P.2d 770

195 Wash. 197

STATE v. PAPPAS et al.

No. 27056.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 16, 1938

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; James B. Kinne, Judge.

Frank Pappas and Sam Platis were convicted of possessing liquor with the intent to sell it unlawfully, and they appeal.

Affirmed.

John F Garvin and J. E. Bakken, both of Seattle, for appellants.

B. Gray Warner and Laurence A. Peters, both of Seattle, for the State.

STEINERT, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment, in a cause tried Before a jury convicting appellants herein of the crime of possession of liquor with the intent to sell it unlawfully.

The record discloses these facts: Agents of the state liquor control board visited certain premises in the city of Seattle on a particular occasion and there made a purchase of intoxicating liquor, but from persons other than these appellants. A few days later the officers procured a search warrant and again went to the premises, with the purpose of making a raid. As they approached the place, they were observed by appellant Platis, who was acting as a 'lookout'. Platis immediately ran into the building hastily closed and locked the door; and at the same time called out, 'Dump!' The officers thereupon broke into the building and found appellant Pappas standing at the end of a bar near a sink; his hands and face were bleeding. In the sink, wherein water was running, was a quantity of broken glass and a hammer. No intoxicating liquor that could be preserved by the officers was found on the premises, but the fumes of whiskey were strong about the sink. On the wall behind the bar was a federal retail liquor dealer's license, technically referred to as a 'stamp.'

The prosecution was brought under Rem.Rev.Stat. § 7306-92A (1937 Supp.), Laws of 1937, ch. 144, § 1, p. 518, which reads:

'Any person who shall keep or possess liquor on premises conducted or maintained by him as principal or agent with the intent to sell the same contrary to provisions of this act, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. The possession of liquor by such principal or agent on premises conducted or maintained, under Federal authority, as a retail dealer in liquors, shall be prima facie evidence of the intent to sell liquor.'

The basic elements of the crime as defined by the statute are, first, possession of liquor on premises conducted or maintained by the person, and, second, intent to sell it contrary to the provisions of the Washington state liquor act.

With respect to the first element, we are satisfied that the evidence was ample to warrant the jury in finding, as the verdict indicates that it did, that appellants kept or possessed liquor on premises conducted or maintained by them, either as principals or as agents. Appellants did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and, in their brief, concede that no question on that score is now subject to review.

Upon this appeal, wherein appellants are represented by substituted counsel, the sole assignment of error relates to the admission of certain testimony during the trial.

The officers testified that, when they entered the building at the time of the raid, they 'saw a Federal liquor license on the wall.' So far as the record discloses, this brief recital was all the evidence, either on direct or cross examination, with respect to the license. The only objection interposed to this testimony was that it was not the best evidence.

The testimony as thus given bore upon the second element of the offense, namely, intent. Upon that element the court instructed the jury as follows: 'You are instructed that the possession of liquor by such principal or agent on premises conducted or maintained, under Federal authority, as a retail dealer in...