State v. Parris

• Decision Date: 02 May 1935
• Docket Number: 6147
• Citation: 44 P.2d 1118,55 Idaho 506
• Parties: STATE, Respondent, v. GUST PARRIS, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

44 P.2d 1118

55 Idaho 506

STATE, Respondent, v. GUST PARRIS, Appellant

No. 6147

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 2, 1935

CRIMINAL LAW-INTOXICATING LIQUOR-FURNISHING TO MINORS-EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY OF-CORROBORATION-COERCION-PROOF OF SEPARATE OFFENSES-NEW TRIAL.

1. In prosecution for furnishing intoxicating liquor to minors conviction could be upheld, although testimony of minors was uncorroborated (I. C. A., sec. 18-217).

2. In prosecution for furnishing liquor to minor, whether witnesses made contradictory statements, and whether their evidence was result of coercion because witnesses were on parole from juvenile court, raised questions of credibility and weight to be given testimony, to be determined by jury (I. C. A., sec 18-217).

3. Proof of separate offenses is admissible when two or more crimes are so linked together in point of time and circumstances that one cannot be fully shown without proving other.

4. In prosecution for furnishing liquor to a minor, evidence that defendant immediately after furnishing liquor committed offense of indecent exposure in presence of minors held admissible (I. C. A., sec. 18-217).

5. In prosecution for furnishing liquor to minors, prosecutor's attempted introduction of stenographic reports of delinquency proceedings against two prosecuting witnesses held not prejudicial, where accused did not timely object thereto, and he had availed himself in first instance of evidence of such character (I. C. A., sec. 18-217).

6. In prosecution for furnishing intoxicating liquor to minors evidence held to support conviction (I. C. A., sec. 18-217).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for Bannock County. Hon. C. J. Taylor, District Judge.

Conviction for furnishing intoxicating liquor to a minor. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Petition for rehearing denied.

C. M. Jeffery, for Appellant.

When the state asks incompetent questions intending to show the defendant guilty of other crimes, with the evident intent of impressing the probability of his guilt on the minds of the jury, a judgment of conviction will be reversed. (People v. Wells, 100 Cal. 459, 34 P. 1078; People v. Mulling, 83 Cal. 138, 23 P. 229, 17 Am. St. 223; Gale v. People, 26 Mich. 157, 161.)

Honorable Bert H. Miller, Attorney General, and Ariel L. Crowley, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Testimony of a single minor witness, though contradicted, will support a conviction for giving intoxicating liquor to a minor, credibility of witnesses being for the jury. (State v. Payton, 45 Idaho 668, 264 P. 875; State v. Keyser, 38 Idaho 57, 219 P. 775; State v. Hopkins, 26 Idaho 741, 145 P. 1095.)

The rule excluding proof of separate offenses is subject to the exception that evidence of other offenses is admissible when two or more crimes are so closely linked together in point of time or circumstances that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other. It is so held in case of prosecution under the statute involved in this case. (State v. Alvord, 46 Idaho 765 (771), 271 P. 322; 8 R. C. L. 200, sec. 195; Burnett v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. 97, 201 S.W. 409.)

BUDGE, J. Givens, C. J., and Morgan, Holden and Ailshie, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

Appellant was charged with, and convicted of, the crime of furnishing intoxicating liquor to a minor, which under the provisions of I. C. A., section 18-217, is a felony. From the judgment of conviction and the denial of a motion for new trial this appeal is prosecuted.

Proof was introduced by the state substantially to the following effect: On or about July 27, 1933, two girls, each of the age of 15 years, by invitation of appellant entered the barber-shop operated by him and engaged in conversation. One of the girls asked appellant if he had any whiskey; appellant replied in the affirmative, and thereupon the girls went across the street and procured a bottle of soda water. Upon their return appellant mixed whiskey with the soda water and gave it to the two girls and they proceeded to drink the same in his presence. Immediately thereafter, and as a part of the res gestae, the girls entered one of the bathrooms located in the barber-shop; appellant followed them in, whereupon, it was testified by one of the girls he committed an act of indecent exposure, referred to as the "bathtub incident." All of the facts and circumstances above mentioned were positively denied by appellant.

Three assignments of error are made. First: That the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and the judgment entered thereon. It is contended that since the testimony of the two girls was uncorroborated, no conviction could be upheld. There is no merit in this contention. (State v. Payton, 45 Idaho 668, 264 P. 875; State v. Keyser, 38 Idaho 57, 219 P. 775; State v. Hopkins, 26 Idaho 741, 145 P. 1095; State v. Driskill, 26 Idaho 738, 145 P. 1095.)

It is further insisted the evidence is insufficient for the reason it was given under coercion, in that it appeared that the girls were on parole from the juvenile court, and further that the girls had made contradictory statements. The attempted impeachment, and the question of whether contradictory statements were made by the witnesses, as well as whether or not the evidence given by them was the result of...