State v. Paun

• Decision Date: 21 October 1930
• Docket Number: 6675.
• Citation: 155 S.E. 656,109 W.Va. 606
• Parties: STATE v. PAUN.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

155 S.E. 656

109 W.Va. 606

STATE v. PAUN.

No. 6675.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

October 21, 1930

Submitted October 14, 1930.

Syllabus by the Court.

Hearsay rule excludes hearsay evidence only when offered as proof of truth of matter asserted, not when offered merely to explain previous conduct.

The hearsay rule excludes hearsay evidence only when offered as proof "of the truth of the matter asserted"; and does not operate against such evidence when offered for the mere purpose of explaining previous conduct.

Ordinarily officer will not be required to disclose his source of information regarding crime.

The proper administration of the law ordinarily forbids requiring an officer to disclose his source of information regarding a crime.

Error to Circuit Court, Harrison County.

Alex Paun was convicted of unlawfully selling liquor, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

John B Wyatt, of Clarksburg, for plaintiff in error.

Howard B. Lee, Atty. Gen., and W. Elliott Nefflen, Asst. to Atty Gen., for the State.

HATCHER J.

Defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling liquor. The sale was made to a deputy sheriff in defendant's pool room. He admitted the sale, but contends that he was entrapped into making it and should therefore be exempted from punishment. He testifies that he had never dealt in liquors, but that on the evening of the sale, upon the representation of the officer that he had a cold, might get the flu, and wanted some liquor from defendant, he had a strange young man, who was in the pool room at the time, go out and bring a pint of whisky to him, which he then gave to the officer, desiring no payment, but money was thrust upon him by the officer. The accommodating stranger did not appear at the trial, but two witnesses, who claimed to have been in the pool room at the time, corroborated defendant as to the movements of the stranger. The deputy sheriff denied any inducements for the sale, other than a mere request for a pint, denied any association of defendant with a third person, and also denied that defendant showed any reluctance to accept the money. Other officers who were without the building said no person entered or left the pool room while the whisky transaction was taking place. Under the evidence of the state, the defendant was not entrapped. The jury accepted that evidence. We see no reason to question that acceptance.

The defendant charges error in the exclusion of...