State v. Parenti

• Decision Date: 10 February 1925
• Docket Number: 35495
• Citation: 202 N.W. 77,200 Iowa 333
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. WILLIAM PARENTI, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

202 N.W. 77

200 Iowa 333

STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. WILLIAM PARENTI, Appellant

No. 35495

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 10, 1925

REHEARING DENIED JUNE 25, 1925.

Appeal from Adams District Court.--HOMER A. FULLER, Judge.

THE defendant appeals from a conviction upon violation of Section 2382, Supplemental Supplement to the Code, 1915, which prohibits the manufacture of intoxicating liquors.

Affirmed.

Wisdom & Wisdom, for appellant.

Ben J Gibson, Attorney-general, and John Fletcher, Assistant Attorney-general, for appellee.

STEVENS J. FAVILLE, C. J., and DE GRAFF and VERMILION, JJ., concur.

OPINION

STEVENS, J.

I.

The indictment charged the defendant with the illegal manufacture of intoxicating liquors. A motion was made by him to quash the indictment, upon the ground that it was obtained upon the testimony of witnesses who acquired their information by unlawfully entering the premises of defendant, and by means of an unlawful search warrant. The motion was overruled, and we think properly so. So far as evidence was obtained by means of a search warrant, the admissibility of the testimony is established by our decision in State v. Tonn, 195 Iowa 94, 191 N.W. 530. The other matters alleged presented no ground for quashing the indictment. Section 5319, Code of 1897.

II. The court permitted a witness to testify that he obtained a drink of wine from the defendant, which in his judgment was intoxicating. Another witness was permitted to testify that he drank a small glass of liquid, but could not say whether it was wine or vinegar; and another, that defendant admitted to him that on various occasions he had manufactured wine; that the liquors he saw on the premises were intoxicating, and that the defendant told him that he drank his own wine; that on another occasion he stated that the value of the wine was $ 8.00 per gallon, and that it cost him that sum to manufacture it. All of the above and other testimony of similar character was admitted over objections by the defendant. The testimony was clearly admissible, although much of it did not bear directly upon the question as to whether the defendant manufactured the liquor. It tended to show that he had liquor in his possession. The defendant practically admitted that he had manufactured 100 gallons of wine for a citizen of Corning, and that "it would knock the top of your head off." The witnesses who it is charged illegally...